Shermer flips GW stance

[RandFan]

I found the passage I was looking for. It's specifically about possible conflicts between science and religion, but it's generally applicable:

Originally Posted by Richard Feynman
For the student, when he learns about science, there are two sources of difficulty in trying to weld science and religion together. The first source of difficulty is this--that it is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiousity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.

Thank you,

It seems to me that critisism of AGW is healthy. However it seems to me that considering the stance of the scientists I do think that politically we need to make some changes and start considering what those changes should be.

Honest skeptics like Shermer are to be commended IMO.

 

[RandFan]

In global terms the Little Ice Age was moderate, hardly noticeable in most of the world. It was strongest in the North Atlantic. The global effect might be atrributable to solar influences as well as the North Atlantic cooling, which naturally reduced the global average.

From historical records the likeliest candidate is an irruption of Arctic Ocean water into the North Atlantic, weakening the THC and bringing ice with it. The cause of that might be related to the free-surface effect (the Arctic Sea is a rather shallow bowl, almost entirely enclosed). There is also a rather obscure hypothesis, Russian in origin IIRC, that tidal forces create a sort of rotating standing-wave, very long and slow, which periodically sends a pulse of cold water and ice into the gap between Greenland and Norway .

"Little Ice Age" is an imprecise term. The North Atlantic cooling around 1700 was most pronounced in winter, and pack-ice was reported where normally only icebergs would be expected (strongly suggesting an unusual interaction between the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic). Russia - far from Atlantic influences - actually did rather well during this period, perhaps because there was less ice in the Arctic for a decade or two.

You don't really answer the question. What is moderate and how are current world temperatures not moderate?

 

[RandFan]

I was talking to my friend at the weekend. He was saying he could earn a lot more money in private industry, instead of researching for the CSIRO.

Dear Ed how I love anecdotal evidence.

Ok, to be fair, this is in response to an unsubstantiated, possible motive that I advanced.

 

[blutoski]

I agree. Good post.

Related cartoon:
Hollingsworth Hound in "Track and Failed"

 

[CapelDodger]

You don't really answer the question. What is moderate and how are current world temperatures not moderate?

Using the warming over the last century as the bench-mark for "large", the cooling in the LIA was moderate. Current temperatures are unprecedented in this inter-glacial, so they aren't "moderate" by any measure.

 

[paiute]

Which reminds me...

The same camp that is so prone to whip out Pascal's wager to enroll me in their mythology will completely discount the as yet unnamed wager as it relates to global warming:

If global warming is true and we do nothing, we are screwed, blued and tattooed.
If global warming is true and we take measures to ameliorate it, we will benefit.
If global warming is false and we do nothing, no problem.
If global warming is false and we take measures to ameliorate it, we are inconvenienced.

Score?
Do nothing = no problem or totally fscked.
Do something = benefit or inconvenience

 

[Beerina]

A warming phase has a mechanism behind it. It isn't just something that happens.

Not necessarily. The natural state could be cyclic variation.

When scientists modeled predator/prey relationships with differential equations, lo! Their populations never stabilized. Indeed, even if they started stable, they soon started oscillating.

The reason: With lots of prey, times are good for predators. Their populations explode until they start reducing the prey population. Then they start starving out, too, and the prey population can rebound. Both populations oscillating is the natural state, there is no "stable equalibrium".

It wouldn't surprise me if the Earth's climate was that way, even if the sun's output was perfectly consistent, which it is not.

 

[Beerina]

Few things..
2.I'd like to see these so called "Environmental skeptics" say global warming is still hypothetical once this next hurricane season is over and a few more "katrinas" hit the east coast of the united states.

This demonstrates what is known as "innumeracy", or illiteracy about numbers and proportions and statistics. A couple of bad years in the past five is only locally bad, not historically.

And if nothing happens, will you trumpet that things are "all better now"? No, of course not. That demonstrates woo attititude, akin to a believer ignoring a cold reader's misses. In fact, neither another bad season (or three) demonstrates global warming anymore than several mild seasons demonstrates a lack thereof.

 

[a_unique_person]

This demonstrates what is known as "innumeracy", or illiteracy about numbers and proportions and statistics. A couple of bad years in the past five is only locally bad, not historically.

And if nothing happens, will you trumpet that things are "all better now"? No, of course not. That demonstrates woo attititude, akin to a believer ignoring a cold reader's misses. In fact, neither another bad season (or three) demonstrates global warming anymore than several mild seasons demonstrates a lack thereof.

An exceptional run of bad years would indicate something is happening. As it is, Australia has just had an exceptional year, and, IIRC, so has the typhoon season.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not necessarily. The natural state could be cyclic variation.

When scientists modeled predator/prey relationships with differential equations, lo! Their populations never stabilized. Indeed, even if they started stable, they soon started oscillating.

The reason: With lots of prey, times are good for predators. Their populations explode until they start reducing the prey population. Then they start starving out, too, and the prey population can rebound. Both populations oscillating is the natural state, there is no "stable equalibrium".

It wouldn't surprise me if the Earth's climate was that way, even if the sun's output was perfectly consistent, which it is not.

They are way ahead of you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not necessarily. The natural state could be cyclic variation.

When scientists modeled predator/prey relationships with differential equations, lo! Their populations never stabilized. Indeed, even if they started stable, they soon started oscillating.

The reason: With lots of prey, times are good for predators. Their populations explode until they start reducing the prey population. Then they start starving out, too, and the prey population can rebound. Both populations oscillating is the natural state, there is no "stable equalibrium".

You've just described the mechanisms behind the oscillation. My clock goes through a cycle, and there's a mechanism involved. Climate doesn't oscillate without mechanisms.

 

[RandFan]

Using the warming over the last century as the bench-mark for "large", the cooling in the LIA was moderate. Current temperatures are unprecedented in this inter-glacial, so they aren't "moderate" by any measure.

?

How much unprecedented? Would you please demonstrate (cite) your claim? Why would you refuse to consider data from other periods? If the earth was warmer in other periods without humans wouldn't that suggest something?

Capel, why is this like pulling teeth? You sound like you have some knowledge in this area but you let the information trickle out. You make claims without justification and you don't make yourself clear.

I'm not making any claims. You are. Could you justify why scientists don't or won't consider data from other eras (glacial periods) or why you feel justified in refusing to consider that data? You seem to be playing some game. Why do we have to play 20 questions?

Hey, I have an idea, why don't we cut to the chase, specifically state what your argument is and back it up with data. I'll acknowledge your argument, if I think it is persuasive I'll concede the argument and go away. Otherwise I'm going to conclude that you are insincere and put you on ignore.

Fair enough?

 

[RandFan]

Do nothing = no problem or totally fscked.
Do something = benefit or inconvenience

Inconvenience? What is your basis for stating that it is a mere inconvenience?

 

[CapelDodger]

?

How much unprecedented?

Without precedent. How does one quantify a word like unprecedented? Do you have any information that current temperatures are not unprecedented in this inter-glacial? You've referred to Dr Gray's website previously, is such information in there? If so, please link to it.

(edited for spelling)

 

[Badger]

Without precedent. How does one quantify a word like unprecedented? Do you have any information that current temperatures are not unprecedented in this inter-glacial? You've referred to Dr Gray's website previously, is such information in there? If so, please link to it.

(edited for spelling)

The current outside ambient temperature is 18C where I am. That is unprecedented for today, June 14, 2006!

Do you get what I'm saying?

 

[kevin]

A warming phase has a mechanism behind it. It isn't just something that happens.

Not necessarily. The natural state could be cyclic variation.

Sorry, this would violate physics. If something warms there has to be a mechanism behind it, otherwise it is supernatural. The extra energy that is causing the warming must come from somewhere. Possible the sun has increased output causing extra energy to strike the earth, but measurements of the sun's output don't seem to show this. Current proposed mechanism is that something has changed in the atmosphere causing earth to reflect less energy from sun. That energy goes into warming the atmosphere. Current proposed mechanism for somthing changing in the atmosphere is primarily the amount of CO2, with the additional CO2 coming from people.

Yes it is possible the state of the climate is cyclical, but the cycle is in reponse to something it just doesn't magically happen. e.g. the cycle of the seasons is in reponse to the tilt of the earth relative to the sun as it orbits. Longer term cycles also need a mechanism to cause them.

Additionally it is possible to break natural cycles. Go in and kill all the prey in your example. What happens to the predator? Where in the cycle had that occured before?

 

[CapelDodger]

How much unprecedented? Would you please demonstrate (cite) your claim? Why would you refuse to consider data from other periods? If the earth was warmer in other periods without humans wouldn't that suggest something?

Whatever it suggests, it doesn't suggest that humanity can't affect climate. Of course climate varies for natural reasons. The ice-age cycle, for instance, which has been the dominant influence for the last 4 million years or so. And, of course, it's not that cycle which is causing the current climate event.

The cycle is characterised by a long period of glaciation followed by rapid temperature fluctuations as ice-sheets retreat, after which comes a quiescent warm inter-glacial which terminates in a rapid cooling and glacial advance. We have long been in that quiescent phase, which makes this sudden warming anomalous. Considering data from other similar periods.

Given that the warming is anomalous, any natural cause would be of necessity unusual. The whole world is being very carefully scrutinised these days, and much effort has been put into spotting such an unusual event. It ought to stand out, if it exists. But it hasn't been found. There's still hand-waving and "maybe we're not looking in the right place", but that's about it.

On the other hand, something that does stand out as unusual, unique even, is genus Homo's coming of age, inheritance of the earth, and substantial re-modeling of same. On the surface and in the atmosphere (and, to an increasing extent, in the oceans it mines for protein). Humanity has changed the albedo of the surface, and has substantially increased the greenhouse component of the atmosphere.

What's the problem? On the one hand there's vapour-ware, on the other there's a prototype, albeit lacking all the bells and whistles. Why are we still talking about this?

(edited for ])

 

[epepke]

Which reminds me...

The same camp that is so prone to whip out Pascal's wager to enroll me in their mythology will completely discount the as yet unnamed wager as it relates to global warming:

If global warming is true and we do nothing, we are screwed, blued and tattooed.
If global warming is true and we take measures to ameliorate it, we will benefit.
If global warming is false and we do nothing, no problem.
If global warming is false and we take measures to ameliorate it, we are inconvenienced.

Score?
Do nothing = no problem or totally fscked.
Do something = benefit or inconvenience

It is similar to Pascal's wager.

There are a couple of differences, though. Maybe we could have taken measures to ameliorate it 100 or even 50 years ago. It doesn't seem likely that we can do much about it now. So far, the measures that have been proposed (such as Kyoto) are almost completely ineffectual and would even have been so if a substantial number of countries had done what they said.

People will respond, of course, that Kyoto was only meant to be a first step and put in a framework and blah blah blah, but even as a first step, it's a very stupid one.

Ironically, there's a much better first step. It's not guaranteed to do much, but it will do far more than anything else I've seen proposed. That would be to start building nuclear power plants up the wazoo.

Trouble is, there's a strong overlap between the cultures that talk a lot about the evils of global warming and the "no nukes, y'all" crowd.

 

[RandFan]

Whatever it suggests, it doesn't suggest that humanity can't affect climate.

Well that would certainly be a giant straw man. I have never posited the argument that any such fluctuations would prove or suggest that humanity can't affect climate.

Of course climate varies for natural reasons. The ice-age cycle, for instance, which has been the dominant influence for the last 4 million years or so. And, of course, it's not that cycle which is causing the current climate event.

(emphasis mine)

1.) You don't answer my questions.
2.) You authoritatively make a claim without providing any evidence to support that claim.

What the hell do you mean "and of course"? That does not follow from anything you have thus far said.

The cycle is characterized by a long period of glaciation followed by rapid temperature fluctuations as ice-sheets retreat, after which comes a quiescent warm inter-glacial which terminates in a rapid cooling and glacial advance. We have long been in that quiescent phase, which makes this sudden warming anomalous. Considering data from other similar periods.

(emphasis mine) What makes this "sudden warming" anomalous? Compared to what? What is your data from other similar periods? What periods? You have stated somewhat categorically that you are uninterested in any periods other than the current one so at best I would say you are drawing a conclusion from a limited data set.

Given that the warming is anomalous...

Claim has not been established here. The question at hand is, is it anomalous? Compared to what?

On the other hand, something that does stand out as unusual, unique even, is genus Homo's coming of age...

Yes, but this is neither here nor there since you don't even know, or care, what the fluctuations were in other periods. Based on your argument to date in this discussion there is no reason to assume that the warming is unusual. You simply state that it is.

Question: If there existed times in other glacial periods where the temperature was warmer than it is now then how would you account for that if there were no humans?

Answer: You don't know because you don't even know if there were any differences and you have stated that you don't care about those periods.

What's the problem? On the one hand there's vapour-ware, on the other there's a prototype, albeit lacking all the bells and whistles. Why are we still talking about this?

Since I don't know what you are talking about so I don't know. Given what you have stated here (which is nothing) then there would be a damn good reason for skeptics to be talking about this.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the state of the science is quite a bit different than you understand. Quite frankly I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about. I hate to be rude but so far you have not posted anything other supposition and

 

[RandFan]

Without precedent. How does one quantify a word like unprecedented?

Very, very simply.

1-10th of 1% (.1) of 1 degree hotter than it has ever been before is unprecedented.

3 degrees hotter than it has ever been before is unprecedented but by a lot more.

Do you have any information that current temperatures are not unprecedented in this inter-glacial? You've referred to Dr Gray's website previously, is such information in there? If so, please link to it.

(edited for spelling)

Excuse me? You are the one stating that current temperatures are unprecedented. I think it incumbent upon you to support this claim.

I honestly don't know. That is why I have been asking.

Edited because I'm simply not qualified to state that 1-10th of 1 degree is "not much" Note that the quote below in Badger's post contains the original text.

My apologies.