Originally Posted by Justin '77

To illustrate: one could also use the argument that since the process of metabolism in the human organism is a net exothermic process, the presence of more human beings in a system merely as heat-generators will result in a higher steady-state temperature. One could then also find temporal correlation between the number of human beings on the planet and the recent rise in global temperatures. All manner of squiggly lines could be drawn to correlate the two. But would such correlation demonstrate that the number of homo sap on the planet is itself the driver of global temperature increase? That therefore the solution to the problem would be in a reduction of the number of metabolic heat-engines in the biosphere?

Bob's argument is no less unfounded. Post hoc.

Metabolism in the human organism is not a net exothermic process. Let us suppose it were. What you have then is an incorrect statement--you would be wrong. But it is not an example of the post hoc fallacy.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Metabolism in the human organism is not a net exothermic process.

Umm..
Yeah, sure, Mike. Whatever.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You missed the point entirely. Real scientists do not talk about "persuading" anyone. They present data and hypotheses, and are open to revising their theories if other people present contradicting data. In fact, they WANT people to have opposing ideas, because an open exchange of information is what eventually leads to The Truth. What you're doing is presenting the conclusions that you've drawn, based on incomplete data (and even Mike has acknowledged that the evidence is "circumstantial"), and then systematically bashing anyone who disagrees with you. THAT is what reminds some of us of a New-Age Crusade.

But I do want the 'skeptics' to present their all volunteer plans to achieve thresholds they propose. I do want to hear the data on warming on other planets. I do want to hear theories as to what is causing the warming effect along with data to back it up. It is just that the 'skeptics' are not willing or able to provide these things.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Since you brought up Hitler again, the original point THERE was that Nazi Germany is an example of the worst things that can happen when a minority under the guise of science decides that they know what is best for everyone, and takes control to enact their own policies. Sorry that you don't like the comparison, but I stand by it.

I dislike autocratic rule in all its flavors: monarchy, fascism, communism or just plain vanilla military dictatorship. I think I've been consistent in that, at least.

One of the many thing I dislike about Hitler would be their pseudo science of racism. They proclaimed the existence of a master race. They dressed this Big Lie up with a touch of scientific language, and used it as an excuse to do what their politics suggested they wanted to do anyway.

To my mind, the correct response to that possibility is not to allow people to get away with pseudo science. If people start projecting their political views as science, I'd like to see them back it up as science. This means I request a coherent theory backed up with data and sources for their data. People who can't go that far are apt to be demagogs. They have a first amendment right to state political opinions, but not a right to lie in such a way to potentially cause lives to be lost, at least not without being required to defend their position.

At the same time, Bush is not Hitler. If one happened to be a Jew in Germany, given the unlikely advantage of 20 20 hindsight, the correct answer would have been to leave the country, wait a few years, then join the army of one's new country, an army that would help crush the Third Reich. Hitler would have sent thugs out to destroy printing presses and intimidate dissenters who tried to fight his pseudo science propaganda. Bush isn't doing that. Bush is going to be put out of power by an entirely different means than Hitler. Bush is not Hitler. No one in these early years of the 21st Century is Hitler.

I scroll past the charts and figures and arguments. I just have a simple question, directed at Rani and Justin '77:

Do you believe there is a chance that increased CO2 emissions could cause global warming, but that it hasn't been demostrated, or do you believe it not to be possible.

The way I see it, if there is a chance that increased emissions could cause global warming, then we'd want to err on the side of caution and try to conserve energy and reduce emissions, particularly in ways that are less economically disruptive. These would include higher fuel efficiency standards, emissions taxes, and the like. Because...

If we do nothing and CO2 emissions in fact do cause global warming, then we'll have to deal with higher sea levels, changes in climate, and all the disruption that involves.

On the other hand, if we err the other way and reduce greenhouse emissions even though it turns out they don't cause global warming, then no harm done -- we've just postponed Peak Oil.

Can anyone point out any flaws to my logic? I can't see them, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Do you believe there is a chance that increased CO2 emissions could cause global warming, but that it hasn't been demostrated, or do you believe it not to be possible.

Eas enough. Of course it might be possible.

The way I see it, if there is a chance that increased emissions could cause global warming, then we'd want to err on the side of caution

I'd agree with you, except that it is very important that the 'erring' is in line with the costs. There is, after all, a risk that I will get into a car accident which is significantly increased when I drive. But I don't let that stop me from driving. The risk, while very much more solidly demonstrable than the risk that CO2 is the culprit behind AGW, is small enough that I am unwilling to forego the benefits of driving to bring it the last little bit of the way down to zero. In fact, I'd be somewhat of a fool to take steps to bring it down so far, since the benefits of mobility are so significant.
So when you say 'err on the side of caution', that doesn't absolve you the responsibility of at least trying to count the cost and at least trying not to err in the first place.

and try to conserve energy and reduce emissions, particularly in ways that are less economically disruptive.

Whoa now. Those are things that I've been advocating from the get-go. They are what I keep pointing out are goods-in-their-own-right whose cause is potentially damaged by associating them too strongly with phologiston. I mean, since we're posing the question, you would admit that there is a risk that the AGW is a whole bunch of garbage cloaked in scientific-sounding language? In which case tying energy conservation to it is a good way to get energy conservation itself discredited? Isn't that quite a risk to be taking?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I hate to keep speaking for Justin, but since he's in a different time zone ...

Thanks man.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Bob's argument sums up to:
Since global temperature is seen to move in a pattern that correlates to the pattern of atmospheric CO2 emissions (that is, since the one thing -- global temperature rise -- happens after, or apparently so, the other thing -- atmospheric CO2 level increase -- the relationship between them is a causal one). In fact, Bob asserts not merely a causal relationship, but a relationship wherein his one element is the prime mover of the system.

The fact that under univariate conditions CO2 concentrations affect steady-state temperatures means next to nothing in terms of determining the importance of that parameter in multivariate systems.

Well, no. I've spoken about many drivers of the system.

Before 1950, the two human caused effects, Greenhouse gas and Sulfate soots, pulled pretty equally in opposite directions. Ozone and volcanic effects also more or less negated each other. Thus, as you have often pointed out, Solar effects were a pretty darn good dominant factor before 1950. Before 1950, it was reasonable to say that Solar variations dominated short term climate alterations, except just after a really big volcanic eruption.

After 1950, Solar effects have stayed pretty much even, while greenhouse gas emissions as measured in the stacks and in the wild have gone up. Thus, while Solar was the dominant element before 1950, greenhouse gasses have become dominant since.

I'm also willing to talk other mechanisms, such as stellar arms, cosmic jets and Milankovitch orbital variations, but most of them are too slow to have played a significant role since 1950. In the short term -- if Ozone is assimilated with the rest of the greenhouse gasses -- solar, greenhouse, volcanic and sulfate could stand as the dominant four.

I'm somewhat bemused by the doublespeak. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but greenhouse gasses do not cause a greenhouse effect? Still, Mike seems to be handling the alleged fallacy cleanly enough that I don't feel a need to leap into that one.

I'll also note that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. There are many others. One can measure their presence in the atmosphere. In the lab, one can measure how much heating each one causes, and detect which bandwidths within the IR spectrum are absorbed by each gas. Ozone is another greenhouse gas, but important enough that Meehl broke it out as a separate line.

I'll add that I respect Mike's effort to build his own model, but if it doesn't incorporate global dimming (the Volcanic and Sulfate lines, above) it is apt to underestimate the effects of the greenhouse gasses. I mention this because it is far easier to scrub sulfates out of factory emissions than CO2, and sulfates present a direct local health effect. Governments tend to force action on sulfates first. Many anticipate that the dirty first generation factories of developing countries like India and China will be fitted with soot reducing technology before too long. When and if this happens, the violet Sulfate cooling curve might level off, and cease to moderate the greenhouse effects.

In short, there are many factors that either cause incoming energy to be reflected out to space, or outgoing energy to be retained by the atmosphere. You can measure each of them. One knows increased soot is causing dimming / cooling effects. One knows Solar has been level since 1950. One knows greenhouse gasses are increasing rapidly. One knows the temperature is going up. While one can try to fine tune the numbers and argue details, if the one factor driving heating since 1950 is overwhelming the two factors pushing towards cooling since 1950, one should take the factor causing heating seriously.

Or, give me a theory as to what other factors are out there, and provide some small smidgeon of evidence that such a theory is in play.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Bob is like The Terminator of global warming. Just when you think he's had it, there he is again, doing the same old shit.

I do admire his persistence and his passionate advocacy for the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'd agree with you, except that it is very important that the 'erring' is in line with the costs. There is, after all, a risk that I will get into a car accident which is significantly increased when I drive. But I don't let that stop me from driving. The risk, while very much more solidly demonstrable than the risk that CO2 is the culprit behind AGW, is small enough that I am unwilling to forego the benefits of driving to bring it the last little bit of the way down to zero. In fact, I'd be somewhat of a fool to take steps to bring it down so far, since the benefits of mobility are so significant.
So when you say 'err on the side of caution', that doesn't absolve you the responsibility of at least trying to count the cost and at least trying not to err in the first place.

But isn't life about more than just a series of personal cost/benefit analyses? Don't people make sacrifices for others based not upon any perceived personal benefit but upon principle?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

But isn't life about more than just a series of personal cost/benefit analyses? Don't people make sacrifices for others based not upon any perceived personal benefit but upon principle?

No. What J seems to be saying is there is always a cost. And you can't dodge that point by saying sometimes ppl do things out of principle. Doesn't mean there aren't costs. It just means that principles are expensive.

And seriously, assuming that everyone needs to become an armchair climate scientist because one thinks it matters is silly. If you can't convince PhDs and MDs to read long scientific posts and graphs on a history geek discussion board in a thread about the climate, do we really think this is going to work out in the real world?

I prefer to think about oil, and think energy is more important than climate change, so you all need to become armchair energy scientists.

And religious nuts think you all need to become biblical scholars because that's what they care about.

Energy scarcity, conflict, and economic necessity will reduce the amount of oil we burn, regardless of climate change. Problem solved.

Originally Posted by antichrist

No. What J seems to be saying is there is always a cost. And you can't dodge that point by saying sometimes ppl do things out of principle. Doesn't mean there aren't costs. It just means that principles are expensive.

I'm questioning whether most people actually consciously think these things through with some sort of mental calculator.

Originally Posted by antichrist

And seriously, assuming that everyone needs to become an armchair climate scientist because one thinks it matters is silly. If you can't convince PhDs and MDs to read long scientific posts and graphs on a history geek discussion board in a thread about the climate, do we really think this is going to work out in the real world?

Well, yes, perhaps Bob is guilty of casting pearls before swine -- but beyond the question of global warming, he is presenting a very good defense of science and reason -- institutions which have been under assault in our culture for quite some time. I'm saddened, but not particularly surprised, at much of the response he (and Mike A.) have been getting. Any inkling that their autonomy might be under attack, and the libertarians go all snarky, jokey, and dismissive.

Ironically, based on what I've seen of their posts here, most of them are probably going to adapt just fine to climate change. My question to them, as always, is whether they give a shit about any interests other than their own.

I prefer to think about oil, and think energy is more important than climate change, so you all need to become armchair energy scientists.

You're probably right about that.

And religious nuts think you all need to become biblical scholars because that's what they care about.

I think we should know about the Bible because it is so entwined with Western civilization, and it's an interesting work of literature to boot.

Energy scarcity, conflict, and economic necessity will reduce the amount of oil we burn, regardless of climate change. Problem solved.

Again, you may be right, but I'm interested in being proactive as much as possible, to reduce unnecessary suffering down the road.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm questioning whether most people actually consciously think these things through with some sort of mental calculator.

Fair enough. My own personal model is that ppl are reasonable, not calculating but rather using an unconscious emotional guestimation that is not as accurate as calculation.

You're other pts are good to. I probably fall in more with them because I know that all science is ultimately fallible (but still IMHO the best we got), there are costs and unforeseen consequences to anything we try and do about it (think for example of the millions of africans dying from malaria because we won't use DDT), and because I am skeptical that we could actually accomplish any real progress were we to actually agree on the problem.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

But isn't life about more than just a series of personal cost/benefit analyses? Don't people make sacrifices for others based not upon any perceived personal benefit but upon principle?

Umm. Of course they do (though it's hardly novel to point out that adherence-to-principle can be counted on the benifit side of the ledger -- it's sort of what makes them principles..).
But what does that have to do with what we were talking about?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Well, yes, perhaps Bob is guilty of casting pearls before swine -- but beyond the question of global warming, he is presenting a very good defense of science and reason.

The fact that you can make such a claim seriously is perhaps a bigger indictment of the whole AGW issue than I could ever offer.
Bob is not defending science -- which is, a rigorous devotion to discovering fact and exposing misconceptions. What he is pushing is the elevating of guess based on incomplete understanding to the status of fact based on a show-of-hands and what essentially amounts to a refusal to accept the scientifically valid position of 'insufficient data'. Bob argues that the data need not be insufficient if we can make up an explanation that appears to at least loosely match what data we have. In fact, Bob -- in his repeated insistence that skeptics are somehow obligated to have Grand Theories of Everything of their own to compete with the one he has designated -- elevates the fact-irrelevant explanation to a virtue.

That's about as anti-science as you can get. It's (and I've said this before) the main reason I bother to speak out against him. Science is too important to be surrendered without a fight.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Umm. Of course they do (though it's hardly novel to point out that adherence-to-principle can be counted on the benifit side of the ledger -- it's sort of what makes them principles..).

Are you saying that the benefit is more of a warm fuzzy feeling (that you're doing the right thing) than anything concrete?

But what does that have to do with what we were talking about?

I'm interested in people's motivations to change, or to stay the same. I don't think it's irrelevant to the issue.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The fact that you can make such a claim seriously is perhaps a bigger indictment of the whole AGW issue than I could ever offer.
Bob is not defending science -- which is, a rigorous devotion to discovering fact and exposing misconceptions.

Actually, I see your debates with Bob and Mike to be intra-familial disputes within the realm of science.

What he is pushing is the elevating of guess based on incomplete understanding to the status of fact based on a show-of-hands and what essentially amounts to a refusal to accept the scientifically valid position of 'insufficient data'.

Uh, you said the "f" word -- fact. That sets off alarm bells in my head. I don't think Bob raises the bar quite that high (though he would have to speak for himself as I'm only guessing ).

Bob argues that the data need not be insufficient if we can make up an explanation that appears to at least loosely match what data we have.

The theory is new. It is immature in the grand scheme of things. It can and should be challenged. But as far as I know, it is the best explanation we have to this point.

In fact, Bob -- in his repeated insistence that skeptics are somehow obligated to have Grand Theories of Everything of their own to compete with the one he has designated -- elevates the fact-irrelevant explanation to a virtue.

Well, come up with a better explanation -- unless you don't feel it's important enough to address. I am not 100% sold on AGW myself, but I have yet to come across something better.

That's about as anti-science as you can get. It's (and I've said this before) the main reason I bother to speak out against him. Science is too important to be surrendered without a fight.

I agree. I wasn't addressing you so much as I was the "science-as-faith" stuff I saw elsewhere in the thread.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... Bob is not defending science -- which is, a rigorous devotion to discovering fact and exposing misconceptions. What he is pushing is the elevating of guess based on incomplete understanding to the status of fact based on a show-of-hands and what essentially amounts to a refusal to accept the scientifically valid position of 'insufficient data'. Bob argues that the data need not be insufficient if we can make up an explanation that appears to at least loosely match what data we have. In fact, Bob -- in his repeated insistence that skeptics are somehow obligated to have Grand Theories of Everything of their own to compete with the one he has designated -- elevates the fact-irrelevant explanation to a virtue.

That's about as anti-science as you can get. It's (and I've said this before) the main reason I bother to speak out against him. Science is too important to be surrendered without a fight.

H-m-m-m. I've mostly stayed out of this argument, because the battle was well joined. This was enough to pull me in.

No, science is not about knowing everything for certain. If it was, we would have made zero progress in that arena since emerging from our winter caves at the end of the last Ice Age. Science is about discovery.

Very few people still accept the Ptolemaic version of the universe, but, at one time, it was the best we had. If we had nothing, we would have had nothing to test ... and disprove. Sir Issac Newton didn't have a perfect picture either. Has his macro-mechanics proved worthless? I'm sure Einstein's physics are equally lacking, as are the theories of quantum mechanics. Yet we have such miracle products as tunnel diodes that exist because we applied those imperfect tools.

So let's cut to the chase. Is Global Warming(TM) man-made, man-assisted or merely man-affecting? No one can know with absolute certainty. What we can know is the potential risks of inaction, because the potential can be based on models and assumptions.

So now we have models that are adequate to convince the best minds in the directly impacted fields to a point of near unanimity. That's a pretty high standard. Are you willing to say, like the tobacco-apologists of the past, that the standard needs to be higher? How high, since perfection is unachievable? If you are wrong, and doing nothing now creates a catastrophe of immense proportions, are you comfortable standing on your argument that 'we couldn't know for sure'?

That's the argument many Germans made in WW-II ... about the Holocaust. Sadly, they were right; they couldn't know for sure. But many new well enough.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The fact that you can make such a claim seriously is perhaps a bigger indictment of the whole AGW issue than I could ever offer.
Bob is not defending science -- which is, a rigorous devotion to discovering fact and exposing misconceptions. What he is pushing is the elevating of guess based on incomplete understanding to the status of fact based on a show-of-hands and what essentially amounts to a refusal to accept the scientifically valid position of 'insufficient data'. Bob argues that the data need not be insufficient if we can make up an explanation that appears to at least loosely match what data we have. In fact, Bob -- in his repeated insistence that skeptics are somehow obligated to have Grand Theories of Everything of their own to compete with the one he has designated -- elevates the fact-irrelevant explanation to a virtue.

That's about as anti-science as you can get. It's (and I've said this before) the main reason I bother to speak out against him. Science is too important to be surrendered without a fight.

Understanding is always incomplete because you can never prove assertions, only disprove them. There will always be insufficient data for EVERY scientific theory for the same reason you cannot say "I've seen a 1,000,000 black ravens so all ravens are black." The evidence as of now is showing that we are changing the climate and if we put off solutions we risk disaster. This is not a question of being right or wrong, it is a question of being better safe then sorry. If AGW turns out to be a load of hooey the stuff done to combat GW (like electric rail lines) will still give side benefits to society. If AGW is correct and we do nothing we are fucked. How's THAT for cost-benefit analysis?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Bob is not defending science -- which is, a rigorous devotion to discovering fact and exposing misconceptions. What he is pushing is the elevating of guess based on incomplete understanding to the status of fact based on a show-of-hands and what essentially amounts to a refusal to accept the scientifically valid position of 'insufficient data'. Bob argues that the data need not be insufficient if we can make up an explanation that appears to at least loosely match what data we have. In fact, Bob -- in his repeated insistence that skeptics are somehow obligated to have Grand Theories of Everything of their own to compete with the one he has designated -- elevates the fact-irrelevant explanation to a virtue.

To me, Science features gathering data, coming up with theories to explain the data, and building logical and mathematical constructs which unite theory and data into a coherent whole.

When, as M&L says, "we have models that are adequate to convince the best minds in the directly impacted fields to a point of near unanimity," and the rival faction has nothing, why should the rival faction be taken seriously? If Science is theory, data and constructs, and the so called 'skeptics' have neither theory, data or construct, what claim have the so called 'skeptics' to apply the word 'science' to their personal opinions? If science isn't a quest for data, theory and constructs, what is science?

Arguing in the style of Clinton 42 about the definition of the word 'cause,' wild forays into 'stelar cartography' and misapplication of logical fallacies do not negate the published science. Show me some data. Tell me what you think is causing global warming. Give me some reason to believe you understand the field being discussed.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Science is too important to be surrendered without a fight.

Well, we can agree on that much.

I remember a cartoon from the time of the Falkland wars. An Argentine soldier asks a British soldier what he is fighting for. The British guy responds that the economy was in the doldrums, the politicians were losing popularity, so the politicians decided to fight a short victorious war to boost their popularity.

The Argentine embraced the Brit. "Friend! Amigo! We fight for the same cause!"

Thanks to both Justin '77 and the Rani for answering my questions. It's all cool, and I feel better about your skepticism.

I go nuts over global warming skeptics who drive their big hummers around while taking money from the oil companies. You guys certainly aren't in that camp.

Bob,

I got curious and did a little searching. Here is a blog entry that discusses the warming on other planets. I only include it because it is laden with links to news articles:


Global warming on other planets

Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, Pluto, and others share the fate of Earth

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/gl...n-jupiter.html


Here is an article from a big Canadian paper that discusses the same thing:


Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6-5ce1e02dced7


I am not aware of SUVs on Mars and Neptune, but I am indeed aware of highly unusual solar activity over the past few years (and have witnessed some of it). Please excuse my skepticism with regard to "man-made" global warming.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Umm..
Yeah, sure, Mike. Whatever.

All these links say is metabolism is an exothermic process. Well duh, of course it is. It's not a net exothermic process, as you claimed. Metabolism requires an energy source (food) the production of which is endothermic. The entire process is slightly net endothermic or neutral, depending on whether net removal of biomass (fossil fuel creation) is going on.

For example, if one person stood on every square meter of all the arable land, their body heat would dominate the climate. That can never happen because those people need food and it would run out before you could support the trillions of people needed to do this. If our metabolism really were net exothermic (say we were nuclear powered) then this limitation to our fecundity wouldn't exist and your proposed cause of warming could happen.

Now nuclear-power people is unrealistic, but an advanced human society using nuclear fission or fusion-derived energy at rates many, many times their metabolic rate is not so far fetched (just how many calories is your car burning compared to you when you drive to work?). If each person consumed energy (on average) equivalent to several thousand times his metabolic level then the heat produced by this energy use would be the dominant climatic forcing. So what you proposed was not as far fetched as you intended it to be.

Here's the arithmetic:

6.5 x 10^9 people * 1500 kcal/person/day * 1day/24 hour *1 hour/3600 sec * 4184 watt*sec/kcal = 4.7 x 10^11 watts

Surface area of the Earth = 5.1 x 10^15 square meters

4.7 x 10^11 / 5.1 x 10^4 = 0.00092 watts / m^2

If each person used 1000 X their metabolic energy the forcing would be 0.9 watts per sq meter, enough to warm about 1/2 degree F.

If each person used 5000 X their metabolic energy the forcing would be 4.5 watts per square meter which is larger that the current CO2 forcing or the solar cycle forcing, making it the dominant climatic driver.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Umm..
Yeah, sure, Mike. Whatever.

I address this point in another post. I note that you decided to challenge a minor point I made instead of dealing with the response I made to your main point. By choosing to deal with a triviality rather than addressing the main point, you have effectively yielded the issue.