Global Warming: Columns and Rows

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:51 pm

And interesting take on the debate about Global Warming and the needed response.

Have a look.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:13 pm

Actually, that's just about the least helpful argument on global warming that I've ever heard. If he's never told it to anyone who could poke a hole on it, then he's been spending too much time talking to his cats. It's just plain dumb. Ignorant, too, but mostly dumb.

Moto42 · Post by **Moto42** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:42 pm

Blow some holes in it then!

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:00 am

Well first off, the negative consequences of the top left box apply equally to the bottom left. If those expenses have those possible negative consequences, then they have them regardless of whether or not global warming is affected in any way. Therefore, column A has no "happy face"--it only has the possibility that maybe we averted armageddon... which is a good thing.

Secondly, there are far more nuanced questions involved. It's not just a matter of whether or not climate change is extreme enough to worry about or if man has anything to do with that. But also, can our possible actions have an effect? CAN we make changes that will significantly alter the course of events? And most importantly, if we really CAN change the face of the global climate, what effect will our changes actually have? Can we possibly do more damage by altering what could have been an otherwise self-correcting or natural cycle?

Our track record of altering the environment in an attempt to solve problems is not good.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:01 am

And my above statements in no way reflect my actual opinion on the matter one way or another. I'm just pointing out his logical fallacies.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:27 am

His argument is sound. If we're looking at each of his columns as having a best case and worst case scenario, then it's fair to say that massive economic depression won't result from spending money if global warming is a reality. His inaction column states that everything is peachy keen if we don't cut back on emissions, which it clearly won't be. Pollution, at the very least, is still going to be a major issue. If we're going best case worst case, then it's a fair simplification.

As such, I can't see this argument as being bad at all. The consequences are the issue, and the consequences of inaction far outweigh the consequences of taking action. That's his point, and it's sound.

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:34 am

I still say you take all the jobless people in the world, get them working on a giant spaceship (assembly line style), load the entirety of the ocean (water, animals, plants, etc) into said spaceship, equip it with self-renewing/cleaning/venting scrubbers/filters (to remove/reduce current toxins), and fire it off into space. Then, when the ice caps melt...nobody cares.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:29 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:As such, I can't see this argument as being bad at all. The consequences are the issue, and the consequences of inaction far outweigh the consequences of taking action. That's his point, and it's sound.

Not at all. IF global warming is occurring, and IF mankind is a significant factor in that, and IF there is action mankind can take that will reverse that trend, and IF reversing that trend will cause more good than harm, THEN (and only then) will taking action have a payoff. Under any other circumstance, it is wasted effort, and potentially damaging to our environment and economy in ways we cannot predict.

Realizing that, if you are one (like Marius) who looks at all those IFs and says, "The change of all those IFs being true is statistically a million to one or worse, and the possibility of us screwing things up if we take action is 40% with unknown consequences" then taking action based on the probabilities is unwise.

If you had applied this simplistic model to the dangers of international terrorism and the need to remove Hussein from power right after 9/11, you would have come up with a similar result that says "We need to overthrow the Iraqi regime... 'just in case.'"

Well, it turned out there were a lot more factors at work, and maybe that was an unwise choice.

This guy implies (no... he states outright) that his chart leads inexorably to a truism. It does not.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:17 am

*sigh*

The critics of global warming are vastly outweighed by the number of scientists that are showing results that have us as the main cause of it. The "ifs" that you're quoting are certainly "ifs", but more in the same way that gravity is an "if", as it is only a theory.

If you look at the debate going on in regards to global warming, you'll find a lot more people in support of the theory than you'll find critics. If you look at peer reviewed articles, you'll find a unanimous agreement. This puts the odds, as I see them, much more in the "global warming is real" category than otherwise.

But that's not the point. The point is that of the two, column A is a better choice. That's his argument. The worst that can happen when taking no action is much worst than what will happen if we do take action. That's his point. That point stands.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:00 am

And my point is that his chart is too simplistic. You cannot base decisions like this on "the worst that can happen." If you did, then everyone following this logic also has to believe in God, because if you don't, the "worst that can happen" is eternal damnation.

You have to look at probabilities and weights of consequences. As it happens, I largely agree with you, Elf. I just think this guy is stupid and so is his chart. I'm not arguing against global warming. I'm arguing against shitty logic.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:23 pm

I don't think it's shitty logic, though. If the argument that some factions are trying to put out there is, "Global warming isn't proven, it could be a bunch of bunk!" in order to sow doubt, then this counter argument isn't that bad an idea. "If it's a 50% chance either way, what's the better option?" isn't a bad way to respond to an argument that is pretty moronic to begin with.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:19 am

That's a pretty confusing statement you've just made, at least to me. Are you saying that if you believe other people are wrong, and using poor reason and rationale to back up their arguments that it's okay to counter their arguments with the same? So basically they're making this shit up, so I will too?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:22 pm

Not make stuff up, but utilise logic of the same caliber (or higher caliber in this case) of the logic being used against you.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:51 pm

This is Pascal's Wager, with a chart. It is logically untenable. It has nothing to do with global warming; this same argument can be applied to alien invasions and government conspiracies. The problem, as has been said, is that it is oversimplified: it does not take into account the likelihood of any given results, simply assumes the extremes and makes all possibilities equally likely. Logically untenable.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:39 pm

Furthermore, it categorizes continuous and ordinal unknowns to binomial variables. It presents a model with a single predictor variable, and a single degree of freedom (whether or not global warming is actually happening) and ignores any number of other important independent variables, each with any number of degrees of freedom, that would make the model realistically complex.

In effect, it uses a silly independent variable, whether or not global warming is happening (an obviously silly choice, since it indisputably is) as a container for the entirely different question of whether Global Warming!TM is happening. It contributes nothing to intellectual discussion on environmental policy.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:06 pm

In addition, it assumes that any action taken will be successful, and that taking action in error will only cause economic harm, and not environmental or other harms. It's totally gay.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:18 pm

Yeah, those are some of those other important independent variables.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:31 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:His inaction column states that everything is peachy keen if we don't cut back on emissions, which it clearly won't be. Pollution, at the very least, is still going to be a major issue.

CO2, which is what everyone is going nuts about reducing, is not a pollutant in the general sense and only matters if in fact it is contributing significantly to global warming.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:32 am

And CO2 is the least damaging emission in terms of global warming. The most plentiful, yes, but only a part of the problem.

I am not having a "debate" as to whether global warming is a real problem. Such an argument is moronic if you actually look at some of the extensive research that has been done on the topic.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:45 am

That's nice, but all I was doing was refuting your point that "pollution will still be an issue." When discussing CO2, that's an asinine statement. It's one thing if someone belches a bunch of sulfur into the air, not so much if someone breathes in your face.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:04 pm

Yes, and I'm saying that greenhouse gasses constitute more than just CO2.

pills11.com

)

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:09 pm

I am not having a "debate" as to whether global warming is a real problem. Such an argument is moronic if you actually look at some of the extensive research that has been done on the topic.

Honestly, Elf, sometimes you show signs of being mildly bright, and then you go and post things like that. We've all seen your "assessment" of the science, and the only thing it clarifies is that you don't really understand science very well.

Instead, lets hear from someone who not only understands science, but who understands climate science, one of the founding fathers of climatology, longtime chairman of the department of meteoroloy, and original chairman of the Institute for Environmental Studies:

Reid Bryson wrote:All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. . . .

Wow, you must be right, it's totally moronic to argue about that.

Reid Bryson wrote:It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.

. . . there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time,

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny.

It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis. It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence.

And that's the important part. This guy knows a little about scientific evidence. That he's right is obvious, and you can see it when there's a real debate, like the one Crazy Elf doesn't want to have. In disagreeing with Bryson, his colleague says, "There are innumerable studies that show that the shoe fits for global warming, I guess you could say, and the human causation for it."

That is the nature of global warming evidence. It's "Shoe Fits" science, and it has been since the day it started. It's an effort to model the climate, and they've made some models that fit global warming. The problem with that is that it's not good science. It gives you an imperfect ability to explain what you see, and even less ability to predict what will happen.

Prediction is the essence of science, and its where Global Warming!TM fails miserably. The thousands of graduate students whose mere existence constitutes the scientific consensus that "proves" Global Warming!TM all produce papers that do a satisfying job explaining something, but utterly fail to predict anything with accuracy.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:32 pm

Regardless of whether or not you believe that climate change can or can't be attributed to the actions of man, does anyone dispute that climate change is a problem (big or small)? (Drought, etc.)

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:26 pm

I dispute that it can categorically be described as a "problem," yes. The last two major climate changes to occur during human existence resulted in civilization and the movement of major world power north of the Med, respectively. It would be drastically oversimplifying to call those changes "problems," though they certainly caused some. This situation is radically too complex to boil down into single words or four-space charts, even though we might like it if it were not so.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:50 pm

DV8 wrote:Regardless of whether or not you believe that climate change can or can't be attributed to the actions of man, does anyone dispute that climate change is a problem (big or small)? (Drought, etc.)

Well, I mean, it's a big problem for you, personally, because your entire nation will likely be under-fucking-water without an infrastructure buildup larger than pretty much anything the modern world has ever seen. But it can also do things like lengthen your growing season, which would be nice.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:29 am

Marius wrote:And that's the important part. This guy knows a little about scientific evidence. That he's right is obvious, and you can see it when there's a real debate, like the one Crazy Elf doesn't want to have. In disagreeing with Bryson, his colleague says, "There are innumerable studies that show that the shoe fits for global warming, I guess you could say, and the human causation for it."

And that guy is only talking about CO2 emissions rather than the host of other polutants that contribute to global warming. He's also one guy, as opposed to hosts of others out there that show otherwise, and do so scientifically.

You can have your debate if you want to, but one side isn't doing very well.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:43 am

Personally, I'd go with both sides aren't doing well. Because both sides are really fucking annoying with the catchphrases and agit-prop.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:56 am

3278 wrote:I dispute that it can categorically be described as a "problem," yes. The last two major climate changes to occur during human existence resulted in civilization and the movement of major world power north of the Med, respectively. It would be drastically oversimplifying to call those changes "problems," though they certainly caused some. This situation is radically too complex to boil down into single words or four-space charts, even though we might like it if it were not so.

Salvation122 wrote:Well, I mean, it's a big problem for you, personally, because your entire nation will likely be under-fucking-water without an infrastructure buildup larger than pretty much anything the modern world has ever seen. But it can also do things like lengthen your growing season, which would be nice.

With borders being the way they are (viciously guarded, especially in problem regions) wouldn't you agree that climate change will cause massive chaos in large parts of the world - incidentally the parts that are already in trouble? Drought is already causing a lot of problems in Central Africa, which can be directly attributed to climate change, and the forecasts say it's only going to get worse. I know that my country flooding, or your country running out of oranges isn't going to cause that much of a stir, but imagine the entire population of Canada decides to migrate south to escape the cold, or the entire population of Mexico migrating north to escape widespread drought? I don't think that the world will explode because of global warming, but I think migration is going to cause a lot of problems. Any time you see large groups of people migrating, skipping across a border, you see incredible social trouble and often also violence.

Besides that there's a problem I think, in certain species of animals and insects becoming extinct as they fail to adapt to the climate change. There's going to be a lot of ecological changes, the effects of which is anyone's guess. With a bit of luck it won't be such a big deal, but the potential for trouble is definitely there.

Oh, and I didn't even look at the article of the original poster. From the few comments made to this thread, I knew it'd be oversimplified. So I agree with 32 on that one.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:21 pm

DV8 wrote:With borders being the way they are (viciously guarded, especially in problem regions) wouldn't you agree that climate change will cause massive chaos in large parts of the world - incidentally the parts that are already in trouble?

Of this there is no doubt. Whether the eventual results of climate change might be considered superior or inferior to the current status quo, the interstitial period would be one of chaos, mitigated only by the desire of the remaining population to survive.

DV8 wrote:Besides that there's a problem I think, in certain species of animals and insects becoming extinct as they fail to adapt to the climate change. There's going to be a lot of ecological changes, the effects of which is anyone's guess. With a bit of luck it won't be such a big deal, but the potential for trouble is definitely there.

It would be an enormous deal. The results on the plants and other animals would be vastly greater than that on the human population, resulting in drastic ecological changes.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:28 pm

Marius wrote:
Reid Bryson wrote:All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. . . .
Wow, you must be right, it's totally moronic to argue about that.
Reid Bryson wrote:It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.

. . . there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time,

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny.

It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis. It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence.
And that's the important part. This guy knows a little about scientific evidence. That he's right is obvious, and you can see it when there's a real debate, like the one Crazy Elf doesn't want to have.

It's absolutely not 'obvious' that he's right. In fact, it is never obvious that anyone is 'right' in science, which is what we're talking about here. Remeber Einstein? Before him everyone just knew that there would never be another breakthrough in physics. At best, there would be an improvement of a few decimal-points, but nothing really new. Science isn't about 'true' or 'false', it's about setting up models that conforms to observed events as accurately as possible. Einstein's theories are the ones that fit best right now, but eventually they will be supplanted by something else, even more accurate. It's hardly surprising if the same happens in climatology.

Marius wrote: In disagreeing with Bryson, his colleague says, "There are innumerable studies that show that the shoe fits for global warming, I guess you could say, and the human causation for it."

That is the nature of global warming evidence. It's "Shoe Fits" science, and it has been since the day it started. It's an effort to model the climate, and they've made some models that fit global warming. The problem with that is that it's not good science. It gives you an imperfect ability to explain what you see, and even less ability to predict what will happen.

Prediction is the essence of science, and its where Global Warming!TM fails miserably. The thousands of graduate students whose mere existence constitutes the scientific consensus that "proves" Global Warming!TM all produce papers that do a satisfying job explaining something, but utterly fail to predict anything with accuracy

Nor can we predict the weather with any accuracy for the next few weeks, but that doesn't make meterology(sp?) less of a science. The climate is far too complex to model exactly with current technology. The only way for Bryson or anyone else to make any predictions, is to base themselves on incomplete and simplified models.

That makes Bryson just as much a 'Shoe Fits' scientist as the proponents of Global Warming. In disagreeing with him, his colleagues are being... scientists. Questioning his hypothesis, and apparently not buying it.

Also, one thing that Bryson apparently forgets (along with a lot of the others opponents of human-driven climate change), is that the CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere is carbon that was taken out of the climate and locked away as coal or oil. This means that we are adding previously unavailable carbon (CO2) to the atmosphere, in addition to the quicksilver, sulphur, methane, etc.

The question becomes how robust the global climate is in assimilating that additional carbon on top of the natural cycles, and the answer is... no-one really knows. But it could accelerate or amplify the natural warming we're in (which is where Bryson is right, incidentally). We are talking thousands of tonnes of coal or oil each year, and it has been going for at leas a century, increasing all the time.

If you absolutely must have a (grossly oversimplified) metaphor for this, here's mine: The cilmate is a set of scales nicely balanced between CO2 output and CO2 consumption, the balance between them being our (mostly) stable and balmy climate. Output and consumption both just about equals out with a little slack on each side. Now, on the output side of things, add a tiny, insignificant pebble (representing our collective output of CO2). As that output grows, add another pebble, and another. Maybe take away one or two to represent better technology. Eventually, however, the increasing 'weight' on the output-side will tilt the scales, throwing the balance off.

Right now we're adding pebbles, and I just happen to think that we need to find some way of either adding to the consumption-side of things, remove pebbles from the output, or both. [/i]

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:44 pm

Science isn't about 'true' or 'false', it's about setting up models that conforms to observed events as accurately as possible.

No, as a matter of fact, it's not. It's not about making models that conform to observation. It's quite the inverse of that. Science is about observed events conforming to our models. It's about setting up models that predict observable events, and then noting whether or not they've done so. Setting up models that "conform" to events is merely explanatory, "likelihood," or "shoe-fits" science, and it's not good science at all.

That makes Bryson just as much a 'Shoe Fits' scientist as the proponents of Global Warming. In disagreeing with him, his colleagues are being... scientists. Questioning his hypothesis, and apparently not buying it.

The statement that there is no good evidence is not a hypothesis. Nor, strictly speaking, is his assertion that the human impact is small. In fact, his assertion that human influence is small is, more properly stated, an assertion of the lack of evidence that human impact is large. It's not a "shoe-fits" argument. It rests, rather, on the principle that you cannot suppose the existence of things (like god, or Global Warming) without evidence and, lacking such, you should suppose nonexistence. His colleagues are not being terribly scientific, in that they are arguing from a point of likelihood (meaning the probability that a given explanation would produce an observed result), which is nonscientific.

We are talking thousands of tonnes of coal or oil each year, and it has been going for at leas a century, increasing all the time.

Which is a much smaller number than you think it is. [edit: or perhaps it isn't, since subsequently I note your conclusion, "Right now we're adding pebbles"] But yes, you're right. We are unleashing stored carbon. And if we were to release all of it, or even, perhaps, a large proportion of it, it would have a fundamental impact on the types of biochemistry (and thus biology) able to exist on this planet, leave aside climate, which would matter so much less. But we're not able to release all of it, and not even a major proportion within the immediate near future of human civilization.

[edit:]

If you absolutely must have a (grossly oversimplified) metaphor for this, here's mine: The cilmate is a set of scales nicely balanced between CO2 output and CO2 consumption, the balance between them being our (mostly) stable and balmy climate.

But that's simply not right. The climate isn't a set of scales, nor is it nicely balanced, nor is our climate particularly stable. That's the same sort of thinking that concludes that evolution has produced a finely tuned ecological or phenotypic "ideal balance." It's artifactual of our very limited anthropic perspective.
[/edit]

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:22 am

Marius wrote:
Science isn't about 'true' or 'false', it's about setting up models that conforms to observed events as accurately as possible.
No, as a matter of fact, it's not. It's not about making models that conform to observation. It's quite the inverse of that. Science is about observed events conforming to our models. It's about setting up models that predict observable events, and then noting whether or not they've done so. Setting up models that "conform" to events is merely explanatory, "likelihood," or "shoe-fits" science, and it's not good science at all.

This is a chicken and the egg argument. What comes first, the observation, leading to the model, or the model being tested. I ask that you entertain the notion for a moment, that it's not either/or, but both, and that both are equally good science. I shall demonstrate:

First, let's take evolution(1); it is a theory that arranges a large amount of observervations, and places them in a model to explain how the wide variety of life on this planet adapted to it's environment. Darwin came up with the mechanism to explain the observations he had made, and it works. Not only does it work, it's opened up entire new fields of research. Before he published The Origin of Species, he did everything he could to crosscheck his observations against the model he was constructing. He did this for close on two decades. If anything then qualifies as shoe-fits science by your standards, it's evolution. It can't make any specific predictions, either, except in the vaguest and most general of terms (that species will change over time). Yet evolution is considered good science.

Physics, chemistry and mathematics, on the other hand, work differently (and for all I know, medicine as well). In these two fields it's common to start with the model first and then test it against observations. Einstein and Newton both did this; Model first, then observations and predictions. And these sciences can make extraordinarily accurate predictions that are observable and testable. Yet, when observations are made that contradict the model, you do not toss out the observation, you toss out the model (or at least rework it, possibly with an ad-hoc hypothesis, or arse-saving*). This is also good science.

The point I'm trying to make with this exercise (albeit no doubt poorly) is that you cannot apply the rules of one 'branch' of science such as mathematics or physics, wholsale onto those sciences dealing with complexand fundamentally chaotic systems, such as climatology or biology. Biology, for instance, seems to flatly contradict the second law of thermodynamics**, but that doesn't mean that the Second Law is bunk. It means that the Second Law is the best workable model we have, and that it is brilliant in it's area of application. It just happens not to describe biological systems very well.

Right now, the proponents of global warming are building models to try to accomodate the observation that the climate is getting warmer. I can't stress enough that I think it's very possible that they're gloriously, wonderfully wrong in what they're saying. However, they might also be absolutely right. The problem is, given the complexity and chaotic nature of climate, we won't know who is right and who is wrong until something actually happens. By which point it may be far too late. This is why I would like to hedge my bets and say "Let's cut CO2 emissions just in case".

Marius wrote:
That makes Bryson just as much a 'Shoe Fits' scientist as the proponents of Global Warming. In disagreeing with him, his colleagues are being... scientists. Questioning his hypothesis, and apparently not buying it.
The statement that there is no good evidence is not a hypothesis. Nor, strictly speaking, is his assertion that the human impact is small. In fact, his assertion that human influence is small is, more properly stated, an assertion of the lack of evidence that human impact is large. It's not a "shoe-fits" argument. It rests, rather, on the principle that you cannot suppose the existence of things (like god, or Global Warming) without evidence and, lacking such, you should suppose nonexistence. His colleagues are not being terribly scientific, in that they are arguing from a point of likelihood (meaning the probability that a given explanation would produce an observed result), which is nonscientific.

The logic is inescapable, one feels. But it isn't. His argument that absence of proof is not proof to the contrary is completely valid, granted, but it cuts both ways. If he has any proof that humans are not contributing to the warming of the planet, and it is as conclusive and rigorous as you certainly seem to believe it is, then I will freely admit that my thinking has been sub-standard, and that Bryson is right and those arguing for human influence are wrong. If such proof can't be produced, then his argument is null.

Evolution again, I'm afraid. Natural selection is not proven (it never can be)***, it makes no predictions. But it is highly, highly probable that that is how things work. So highly probable, that it has been accepted as fact.

Marius wrote:
We are talking thousands of tonnes of coal or oil each year, and it has been going for at leas a century, increasing all the time.
Which is a much smaller number than you think it is. [edit: or perhaps it isn't, since subsequently I note your conclusion, "Right now we're adding pebbles"] But yes, you're right. We are unleashing stored carbon. And if we were to release all of it, or even, perhaps, a large proportion of it, it would have a fundamental impact on the types of biochemistry (and thus biology) able to exist on this planet, leave aside climate, which would matter so much less. But we're not able to release all of it, and not even a major proportion within the immediate near future of human civilization.

But we might not need to release all of it to have an impact on biology and climate both, though. Also, climate and biology are dependent on one another, so I'm not leaving climate out of it. They are co-dependent, emergent systems, as well you know, the one massively effecting the other. Yes, the amount we release is insignificant in comparison to the total amount of carbon the, for lack of a better term, gaia-system(2) shuffles around every day, but the amount we're adding isn't a part of that system to begin with, and that is where it can go massively wrong. This carbon has been carefully sequestered away from the system, a system we don't understand, and in all likelyhood never will understand. Therefore, tinkering with it and trusting blindly that everything will be all right and that nature/God will cope/save us, is about as unscientific as it gets.

Marius wrote: [edit:]
If you absolutely must have a (grossly oversimplified) metaphor for this, here's mine: The cilmate is a set of scales nicely balanced between CO2 output and CO2 consumption, the balance between them being our (mostly) stable and balmy climate.
But that's simply not right. The climate isn't a set of scales, nor is it nicely balanced, nor is our climate particularly stable. That's the same sort of thinking that concludes that evolution has produced a finely tuned ecological or phenotypic "ideal balance." It's artifactual of our very limited anthropic perspective.
[/edit]

Oh, I know. It's a grossly oversimplified model, after all, and almost certainly completely wrong, but it is a very good lie which sounds convincing and might, hopefully, be close to the truth. No-one on this earth(and certainly not me) can follow the complex interactions interactions involved here. Hence the inclusion of 'grossly oversimplified metaphor', above. The metaphor is almost never right, but they are very useful tools to convey meaning.

Of course there is slack in the system, and there is no "ideal balance" in nature. That would lead to stagnation and swift death for all the entities involved(3). But that isn't the core of the issue, which is as follows:

Should we tinker with or possibly place stress on the system, when

A) We might not really need to

and

B) It might lead to a disaster

I say no, we really shouldn't, at least not more than the very minimum.

And just as an addendum, real quick:

A lot has been made of the economic impact that reducing CO2 emissions will have, almost all of it negative. If we're going to cut emissions, we will need new technologies, new industries, in fact, to deal with this. Cheap, renewable energy would be a big bonus as well. Historically, innovation usually leads to economic growth, not stagnation, something I find odd that not one of you has brought up by this point, given that the US has done extremely, extremely well off previous innovations. The car and the digital computer springs instantly to mind. And a bountiful profit was reaped therefrom. It would even yield political profits; No more dependence on foreign oil is the big one, of course.

Unless you're an utter eco-nut or neo-luddite, no-one in their right mind would say "Scrap all the cars", "Turn off the electricity" or "Shut down all the factories!" By this point, we can't, even if we want to (which we don't, so lucky us)! I do think we can find cleaner and more environmentally sound ways to do it, so that we interfere in the least way possible with a system we only understand partially at best, and not at all at worst.

We might even make money off of it.

* Dark Matter and Dark Energy, anyone?

**Second Law of Thermodynamics.

*** Or any other theory, for that matter.

(1) I do apologize for going into the oversimplifications again, but I really feel I must to bring my point across.

(2) Not the Gaia theory, as such, but rather the climate and biological systems interacting.

(3) I can't really bring myself to call a mushroom a being or a creature. Alien might be closest, but so far none has exploded from my chest cavity to lay waste to mankind... Although that would be cool. [/url]

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:01 am

This is a chicken and the egg argument. What comes first, the observation, leading to the model, or the model being tested.

No, it's really not. There's a logical distinction between the two that is fundamental to the nature of science. Science is an endeavor of testing ideas by using them to predict reality. Creating explanatory models which are not empirically testable is something that good scientists often do, but it is not good science.

First, let's take evolution . . . Darwin came up with the mechanism to explain the observations he had made, and it works. Not only does it work, it's opened up entire new fields of research. . . . If anything then qualifies as shoe-fits science by your standards, it's evolution. It can't make any specific predictions, either, except in the vaguest and most general of terms (that species will change over time). Yet evolution is considered good science.

I'm glad you brought up evolution, because in smoking cigarettes and generally doing nothing this afternoon, I'd half composed an entire post about evolution. But first, I meant to talk about the ultimate in "shoe-fits" thinking, which is Creationism. Creationism - the belief that a God created the world as we see it, 4000 years ago, placing dinosaur fossils in the ground, and tooling the laws of nature just so - has the ultimate in likelihood. It's flawless from a purely "shoe-fits" perspective. It's just that it, more often and fundamentally, does not masquerade as science. It shows, rather starkly, the flaw in arguing from likelihood: perfect likelihood offers very little to your understanding because it doesn't demonstrate the way things work, merely one way things could have worked to get us to our observation.

Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the great triumphs of "shoe-fits" thinking, but that does not change what it was. When Darwin came up with it, it would indeed have been wrong to call evolution 'science.' It was merely "shoe-fit" speculation, albeit terribly elegant, accurate, and eventually intuitive. Natural selection was nevertheless revolutionary because it was the first althernative explanation of the origin of species that also had high likelihood. But I should say that evolution then, and some schools of thought in it still, were not science, save where they have since been verified by positive experimentation. That, happily, has occurred prodigiously in the time since Darwin, and has shown that species do change over time - no vague or minor finding, indeed, and a monumentally revolutionary experimental result in a world of pre-Darwinist science - as well as many other more specific and precise findings, particularly in the field of molecular evolution.

Global Warming!TM is distinct from evolution, in that there is little, if any, actual scientific evidence lending it credence. It is akin to a legion of evolutionary biologists sitting around in the decades after Darwin's publication, making computer models to explain the past evolution of the current species, and then using them to conjecture about what evolution has in store in the next 100 millenia, something that would be a foolish task even now that evolution has been established as good science.

Physics, chemistry and mathematics, on the other hand, work differently (and for all I know, medicine as well). In these two fields it's common to start with the model first and then test it against observations.

It is. And that is the definition of Science. Not merely one type of science, but all science. "Science" that does not use the scientific method produces conclusions not founded on the epistemological bedrock that makes science persuasive. They are not scientific, and are an inferior and far less persuasive or relaiable form of evidence, regardless of whether or not they come from the mouths of "scientists."

The logic is inescapable, one feels. But it isn't. His argument that absence of proof is not proof to the contrary is completely valid, granted, but it cuts both ways.

That's not his argument. His argument is that there is an absence of proof. Period.

If he has any proof that humans are not contributing to the warming of the planet, and it is as conclusive and rigorous as you certainly seem to believe it is, then I will freely admit that my thinking has been sub-standard, and that Bryson is right and those arguing for human influence are wrong. If such proof can't be produced, then his argument is null.

That is absolute nonsense. As we've hashed over so many times when talking about God, tigers under beds, and clever invisible aliens, the burden of proof must always rest on those who claim the existence of some thing or effect. The simple principle of parsimony dictates that when he says, "You have no evidence it's happening," you cannot reasonably respond, "You haven't proven it's not." Science - as well as all other tidy and rational thinking - cannot be accomplished by asking your opponents to prove nonexistence.

Evolution again, I'm afraid. Natural selection is not proven (it never can be)***, it makes no predictions.

On the contrary, it makes a very specific prediction, and has been experimentally verified, over and over again.

Also, climate and biology are dependent on one another, so I'm not leaving climate out of it. They are co-dependent, emergent systems, as well you know, the one massively effecting the other.

Well certainly they interact, moreso in the influence of climate on life than the other way around. I wouldn't go so far as to call them co-dependent, because that implies some teleology to both.

. . . but the amount we're adding isn't a part of that system to begin with, and that is where it can go massively wrong. This carbon has been carefully sequestered away from the system, a system we don't understand, and in all likelyhood never will understand.

Well, it was part of the system to begin with, before it was sequestered. It certainly wasn't "carefully" sequestered, as there was no care to it at all, nor planning, nor intent. It merely happened.

Therefore, tinkering with it and trusting blindly that everything will be all right and that nature/God will cope/save us, is about as unscientific as it gets.

Absolutely it's not scientific! Good lord, of course not. It's merely what we do. We have done for millions of years. Since before a first intrepid flipper fish crawled onto the land, life has modified its environment to suit its momentary needs, never comprehending the ways it affected the greater system. Certainly the first plant life had no idea it was taking carbon, so naturally and rightly in the environment around it, and sequestering it away for eons and eons. It's not so much, in the end, that our actions have changed, or our effects increased, but that our comprehension has increased just enough to make us nervous about what we have always done naturally without comprehension.

If we're going to cut emissions, we will need new technologies, new industries, in fact, to deal with this. Cheap, renewable energy would be a big bonus as well. Historically, innovation usually leads to economic growth, not stagnation, something I find odd that not one of you has brought up by this point, given that the US has done extremely, extremely well off previous innovations. The car and the digital computer springs instantly to mind. And a bountiful profit was reaped therefrom. It would even yield political profits; No more dependence on foreign oil is the big one, of course.

Absolutely right. And there is no doubt in my mind that a great number of profound innovations will come from our quest to find new and more efficient ways to use energy. It's one of the things I most look forward to in the future. But that kind of innovation and economic growth comes when people need something, and when the promising new direction is just on the brink of being able to provide what people want, and are willing to pay for. Innovation comes to a "thermodynamic" tipping point, like that which drives chemical reactions. Governments and super-governments, with their bludgeons of regulation and simplified, comprimised pronouncement, are not like catalysts, reducing the "thermodynamic" peak. Rather they merely shift energy from elsewhere, like an inefficient heat pump. I think they do little to speed most innovation, and usually do more damage along the way than I care to see.

Unless you're an utter eco-nut or neo-luddite, no-one in their right mind would say "Scrap all the cars", "Turn off the electricity" or "Shut down all the factories!" By this point, we can't, even if we want to (which we don't, so lucky us)! I do think we can find cleaner and more environmentally sound ways to do it, so that we interfere in the least way possible with a system we only understand partially at best, and not at all at worst.

But, you see, the Global Warming!TM "scientists" have told us that according to their models nothing we can do, short of (or perhaps including) ceasing all use of fossil fuels (which as you've said, we can't do) will forestall catastrophic Global Warming!TM (Of course, I don't happen to believe them.)

[aside]

Biology, for instance, seems to flatly contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

No, it really does not
[/aside]