Who's warming? - Page 2

Maybeso · 2003-08-19, 17:44

Something I haven't seen mentioned here is simulations. The current commercial weather modelling systems are very sophisticated. When a high pressure system is going to drift from the west coast US, north over the Rockies, then down into Texas, the software takes into account how much heat the ground will absorb, how much heat is trapped in the air, and how much is radiated away. It even interactively accounts for that heat producing clouds which reduce the incoming light, but trap more of the reflected heat.

Researchers, using far more detailed models, simply increase the CO2 in the air, which increases the amount of heat trapped. The model then predicts whether the temperatures will stabilize at new levels or steadily increase.

People get the impression that the science is bogus for two reasons (at least).

First, the scientists state up front the parameters that they don't exactly know. How much green-house material is dumped into the environment. How much of that the environment can 'process' or safely remove from the system, etc. So the simulations are run with a range of starting values and variation rates, producing a range of worst-case to best-case scenarios, with varying margins of error. This can give the public a sense of vagueness and uncertainty.

Second, the politicians and special interests pick the scenario that suits them and spin it to support their particular cause. Then the media does the same -- or worse, they spin the already spun story. This creates a sense that every report is a third-hand rumor or a complete fabrication.

If you really want the true story from the source, track down the thesis archives for the universities with established reputations in meteorology, etc. Even then you'll have to consider who the sponsors are, and the bias of the mentoring professor.

"Don't trust everyth.. uh, Don't trust anything you read."

Maybeso

garo · 2003-08-19, 21:49

You got a point there Maybeso.

Maybe global warming is a serious issue and maybe it isn't. But armchair dismissals like the one given by nomadicus because these theories are based on "junk science" are equally junk. It is not particularly scientific to say that because the science behind a theory was faulty the opposite theory is true. All you can say is that we haven't proven the theory. It may still be true and until you show me sound proof for the opposite all bets are off.

Offhand dismissals like the ones quoted in this thread are a typical example of ideology trumping science.

dswanson · 2003-08-19, 22:49

Here's an interesting tidbit from the latest issue (Sept '03) of Consumer Reports...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Consumer Reports

Turn off the computer. Running a computer and a monitor 24 hours a day uses some 1,100 kilowatt hours annually. Putting them on sleep mode could save more than 80 percent of that expense and cut CO2 emissions by up to 1,250 pounds a year, the EPA says.

Pretty frightening stat for those of us running farms. According to this, I'm dumping over 10 tons

of CO2 a year into the air, just to support my DC addiction.

But I'm running the entire farm off of just one monitor. So I can sleep well at night, knowing that obviously most of those kilowatt hours are used by the monitors.[/rationalization]

nomadicus · 2003-08-20, 02:39

Maybeso expressed it well when he refers to the media spinning an already spun story. I don't make armchair dismissals. A distinct bs smell comes from not all, but much of the media. That is the reason I started this thread (perhaps I should have said that upfront) to try and sort out fact from urban ledgend.

I am rigourous in the work I do (in a field unrelated to this topic), having to thoroughly justify my results. So I did not come to my statements at random or due to ideology. In retrospect, I may have placed too much credibility where it was not deserved. Since my main source was the media (and now thanks to this thread I have better sources to look at), I did not want to lay back and not question what came across to me as inuendo or bias.

I sometimes wonder how many people accept global warming instead of calling it into question (as I did albeit rather harshly -- sorry 'bout that).

Quote:

"Don't trust everyth.. uh, Don't trust anything you read."

I like that.

-=- john

apocalypse · 2003-08-20, 03:43

I think most of the confusion is based on our inability to perform a "proper" scientific experiment. We don't have a 'control Earth' where we can test each experimental condition in isolation to convincingly narrow the cause.

I am not an environmental scientist, and there is much I don't understand about this issue, but this is the approach I take to try to better understand.

We know that there are certain gasses in the atmosphere which probive benefits to us (Ozone blocks UV rays, greenhouse gasses moderate temperature, etc.). We have some reasonably strong correlations between certain acts of ours (releasing CFC's and CO2) and reductions in the aforementioned beneficial effects.

I know that correlation does not imply causation, but we do have some plausible explanations why why these activities might cause the observed effects.

If we mitigate the activities which correlate with the ill-effects, we will either a) mitigate the ill-effects, or b) determine more reliably that these actions are not responsible for the ill-effects, thus allowing us to focus on uncovering the true causes.

Unfortunately, we cannot mitigate our actions without some significant economic effects. No one will run such a massively costly experiment without some guarantee that the expected benefit of the result will be worth more than the cost. Since the expected benefit is proportional to the probablitly p(a) that scenario a) is true, and because p(a) can't be known a priori, anyone is free to pull a number out of thin air to justify being for or against climate controls.

Personally, I think we have an impact on global warming, and I would like to run the experiment to find out for sure. However, I might change my mind if my job were on the line.

QuintLeo · 2003-08-20, 06:55

It has been theorised by some folks that have studied the matter that the "Little Ice Age" may have been the start of a MAJOR Ice Age, and was aborted by the pollution effects of the Industrial Revolution.

One thing I've NOT seen is a good study comparing the output of the Sun to the average temperature on Earth on a year-by=year basis - we've had the ability to do this for a couple decades at least, using space-based Sun studying sats.

After all, if the output of the Sun changes a percent or two, it would have a MAJOR effect on the temp of the Earth.

garo · 2003-08-20, 08:19

nomadicus,
Thanks for your clarification. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh in my email as well. I agree wholeheartedly that the blind acceptance of global warming as a fact is wrong. All I meant to say was that a blind dismissal is equally wrong as well.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
heart warming season (slightly violent vid)	firejuggler	Lounge	0	2016-02-10 13:09
Warming cold ∞	xilman	Lounge	7	2013-01-21 20:38
Terrorism or Global Warming	Pablo the Duck	Soap Box	17	2004-04-29 14:19

2003-08-19, 17:44	#12
Maybeso Aug 2002 Portland, OR USA 2·137 Posts	Something I haven't seen mentioned here is simulations. The current commercial weather modelling systems are very sophisticated. When a high pressure system is going to drift from the west coast US, north over the Rockies, then down into Texas, the software takes into account how much heat the ground will absorb, how much heat is trapped in the air, and how much is radiated away. It even interactively accounts for that heat producing clouds which reduce the incoming light, but trap more of the reflected heat. Researchers, using far more detailed models, simply increase the CO2 in the air, which increases the amount of heat trapped. The model then predicts whether the temperatures will stabilize at new levels or steadily increase. People get the impression that the science is bogus for two reasons (at least). First, the scientists state up front the parameters that they don't exactly know. How much green-house material is dumped into the environment. How much of that the environment can 'process' or safely remove from the system, etc. So the simulations are run with a range of starting values and variation rates, producing a range of worst-case to best-case scenarios, with varying margins of error. This can give the public a sense of vagueness and uncertainty. Second, the politicians and special interests pick the scenario that suits them and spin it to support their particular cause. Then the media does the same -- or worse, they spin the already spun story. This creates a sense that every report is a third-hand rumor or a complete fabrication. If you really want the true story from the source, track down the thesis archives for the universities with established reputations in meteorology, etc. Even then you'll have to consider who the sponsors are, and the bias of the mentoring professor. "Don't trust everyth.. uh, Don't trust anything you read." Maybeso

2003-08-19, 21:49	#13
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 2²×691 Posts	You got a point there Maybeso. Maybe global warming is a serious issue and maybe it isn't. But armchair dismissals like the one given by nomadicus because these theories are based on "junk science" are equally junk. It is not particularly scientific to say that because the science behind a theory was faulty the opposite theory is true. All you can say is that we haven't proven the theory. It may still be true and until you show me sound proof for the opposite all bets are off. Offhand dismissals like the ones quoted in this thread are a typical example of ideology trumping science.

2003-08-20, 03:43	#16
apocalypse Feb 2003 2·3·29 Posts	I think most of the confusion is based on our inability to perform a "proper" scientific experiment. We don't have a 'control Earth' where we can test each experimental condition in isolation to convincingly narrow the cause. I am not an environmental scientist, and there is much I don't understand about this issue, but this is the approach I take to try to better understand. We know that there are certain gasses in the atmosphere which probive benefits to us (Ozone blocks UV rays, greenhouse gasses moderate temperature, etc.). We have some reasonably strong correlations between certain acts of ours (releasing CFC's and CO2) and reductions in the aforementioned beneficial effects. I know that correlation does not imply causation, but we do have some plausible explanations why why these activities might cause the observed effects. If we mitigate the activities which correlate with the ill-effects, we will either a) mitigate the ill-effects, or b) determine more reliably that these actions are not responsible for the ill-effects, thus allowing us to focus on uncovering the true causes. Unfortunately, we cannot mitigate our actions without some significant economic effects. No one will run such a massively costly experiment without some guarantee that the expected benefit of the result will be worth more than the cost. Since the expected benefit is proportional to the probablitly p(a) that scenario a) is true, and because p(a) can't be known a priori, anyone is free to pull a number out of thin air to justify being for or against climate controls. Personally, I think we have an impact on global warming, and I would like to run the experiment to find out for sure. However, I might change my mind if my job were on the line.

2003-08-20, 06:55	#17
QuintLeo Oct 2002 Lost in the hills of Iowa 2⁶·7 Posts	It has been theorised by some folks that have studied the matter that the "Little Ice Age" may have been the start of a MAJOR Ice Age, and was aborted by the pollution effects of the Industrial Revolution. One thing I've NOT seen is a good study comparing the output of the Sun to the average temperature on Earth on a year-by=year basis - we've had the ability to do this for a couple decades at least, using space-based Sun studying sats. After all, if the output of the Sun changes a percent or two, it would have a MAJOR effect on the temp of the Earth.

2003-08-20, 08:19	#18
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 2²×691 Posts	nomadicus, Thanks for your clarification. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh in my email as well. I agree wholeheartedly that the blind acceptance of global warming as a fact is wrong. All I meant to say was that a blind dismissal is equally wrong as well.