FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
Hi Firm
Thanks-
I agree with you on the computer modeling stuff, but I think we can tease apart some areas of certainty and uncertainty.
For example- the CO2 data's pretty solid- long track record, and unless we assume that our theories of mixing in gases is in error (and a bunch of my p-chem profs and most other teachers of stat. mech don't know what they're talking about), I think we can leave this one alone.
What I suspect that some folks don't realize is that measuring temperature of the planet is a lot harder. It's heterogeneous, and there are a whole bunch of factors that can vary the temperature of a region- not to mention estimates of its mass and heat capacity. But is this a modeling problem or a data collection problem? There's certainly lots and lots of data and there's also the problem that the historical records of measurement may be off. But we also have some geological proxies that are hard to argue with such as the melting of glaciers, polar caps, coral reef destruction and increasing range of viruses which are born by insects. Dengue for example, is becoming more of a threat to the southern US states.
In terms of the correlation of CO2 and the observed warming (admittedly a noisy number)-the issue isn't really whether or not CO2 is contributing to the warming- the question is whether there are other factors which are powerful enough to alter the temperature over time. Nobody's been able to come up with anything that matches the observed temperature rise- so I tend to think the correlation of CO2 and temperature is a pretty decent hypothesis. Bear in mind that whatever you come up with- it has to have lots of mass and be present in increasing concentration over time. (I guess heat from the earth's core would qualify, but I think we'd see more evidence of that.)
Where we certainly agree though, is the modeling predictions of what happens next. I'm old enough to remember the GIGO rule too, and the computer modeling in some fields is pretty idiotic. Furthermore, given how complex the temperature data is, I don't think there's any hope for a simple analytical solution, which means that you have to use a numerical approach. The temperature data is very noisy, which means that there's a lot going on- and making an extrapolation based on noise needs some very big error bars. So I'll agree with you that the predictions of what happens 20 years out are certainly pretty noisy, but its hard to argue that there isn't going to be some upward trend. So upward trend- yeah, pretty reliable. But any claim of accuracy goes out the window.
Sam,
Again, excellent post. I would tentatively accept everything you have said so far, subject to new data and new paradigms.
I would like to say that it is the noise in the figures where I think a lot of the disagreements come from in these types of discussions, as well as massive confusion about how critical certain assumptions are, as well as the use of anecdotal evidence over rigorous research.
Of course, as Heretic often points out, we only have a case of 1 to study, so anecdotal evidence looms large in many peoples non-scientific calculations.
Because of the small number of cases, this leaves only two areas in which to gather data that may apply (and that may even be tangential information, I'll admit) on the case: other planets, and the geological historical record.
This is the reason that I challenged DomKen on his time frame, and tried to expand his definition of "climate".
Now we come to a critical area: the politics of the situation.
Admittedly, we have incomplete and sometimes contradictory data, so it is here that the degree of uncertainty that one is willing to accept becomes key in one's positions on what (if any) changes to our civilization, economies and cultures that one is willing to espouse and accept.
Here lie dragons. 
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
However, in terms of uncertainty- while the physics is at least on some reasonable footing, I have yet to see anything resembling an economic model that is. So I will reiterate- where is the certainty that giving our economy a good housecleaning is actually going to prove deleterious? Oh, some major firms will fail, but like I said before- they're dead dinosaurs anyhow, and the sooner they go, the better, so we can have some smaller nimble firms that will scavenge the carcass and multiply. I still think that we're going to benefit by developing new technology that will lower long term energy costs. Note that wind and solar are very scary concepts to oil companies and coal firms. The supply of wind and sun isn't limited from a human time frame, thus, once the infrastructure is installed, the cost of electricity can only decrease. And I think this realization has the existing energy companies in a dither.
In theory, not a bad start in the discussion about AGW and it's possible economic impact.
However, I'd just say that it's pretty easy and facile to condemn large segments of the economy to destruction so lightly.
This is where the real debate starts, and which reflects back on some of the uncertainties about AGW. Basically ... what is the danger, and what costs are you willing to pay to address that danger?
Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: How The Obama Administration Elevates Science - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread