OFF: UK's premier green awareness festival under threat from police and local council.

[Paul Mather]

On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:18 AM, M Holmes wrote:

> Paul Mather writes:
>
>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:30 PM, M Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Mather writes:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 7:30 AM, M Holmes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mebbe in a millenium or sixty we'll need to watch the thermal  
>>>>> budget
>>>>> of
>>>>> how we create energy, but not right now. The problem is increased
>>>>> solar
>>>>> heat, not the heat we're actually producing.
>>>>
>>>> Well, sod the IPCC and its uncountable legions of scientists with
>>>> their so-called scientific consensus!
>>>
>>> Paul:
>>>
>>> There ain't no consensus that it's the *heat* we produce that's the
>>> problem. There is a *contention* that more solar heat is trapped by
>>> the
>>> *gases* we produce.
>>
>> Again, not if you ask the IPCC.
>
> OK, how about if you come up with a statement from the IPCC that the
> heat produced by human industry is a significant factor?

Why would I want to do that?

>> Besides, the sentence, "The problem
>> is increased solar heat, not the heat we're actually producing"
>> heavily implies that climate change is attributable to solar  
>> variation
>
> It was clear from the context of the discussion that it
> was the heat load from nuclear power that was under discussion.

No it wasn't.

Clear enough for you?

> The range of viewpoints here seem to be:
>
> A) There is no global warming.
> B) There's global warming mostly caused by solar cycles or other
>   astronomical phenomena.
> C) There's global warming mostly caused by heat from human industry.
> D) There's global warming mostly caused by solar insolation trapped by
>   gases in the atmosphere mostly generated by geological pehnomena.
> E) There's global warming caused by solar insolation trapped by gases
>   mostly caused by human industry.

> It looks almost certain that (B) is a factor
> because there are few other ways to explain global warming on other
> planets and moons except astronomical phenomenon. This will be almost
> certainly one of the solar cycles and therefore Earth is unlikely to  
> be
> immune.

It is pretty much acknowledged that (B+geological phenomena) was a  
major contributor to pre-industrial climate change.  However, it is  
also a consensus that anthropogenic forcing outweighs it when it comes  
to the last 60 or so years.  There have been many papers pointing out  
the bad data handling in the prominent articles in favour of solar  
variation.  But, old citations die hard.

As far as global warming on other planets is concerned, do you think  
their climates operate similar to ours and so what is causing their  
global warming must be what is causing ours?

> Given that volcanoes do spew out the kinds of gases that are
> relevant to the problem, the geophysics of the Earth has to be at  
> least
> partly responsible. The question is whether it's a significant part.
> Then there's human industry. It's likely that we produce enough
> greenhouse gases to contribute to the problem. What remains to be
> determined is how much compared to astronomical and geological
> phenomena. We need science to answer that rather than computer models.

Are you claiming that computer modelling isn't scientific?  The  
Virginia Bioinformatics Institute and various other research groups  
here on campus make heavy use of large-scale computer simulation and  
modelling (large-scale network simulations; epidemiological analyses;  
etc.) and they would argue very, VERY vociferously that what they are  
doing is science.

> My skepticism as to the usefulness of models stems from the Club of  
> Rome
> Report: The Limits to Growth.  This model drove a lot of apocalyptic
> warnings drummed into us when we were at school.

You know, modelling and simulation has come on a bit since you were a  
lad.  Besides, since when do you damn an entire field just because of  
one rotten apple?  That sounds either like cherry-picking your data  
or, um..., being unscientific.

> Then there's my own hobby, macroeconomic finance. I've watched the
> modellers assert for over a decade that this and that model proves  
> that
> this or the other financial derivative is completely safe and hedged  
> and
> that moreover, their spread increased the stability of the whole
> financial system. This was utterly contrary to my understanding of
> things and as anticipated, things went to hell in a handbasket as  
> these
> contracts turned out to have worth only as toilet paper.

But isn't this exactly how science works?  You formulate a hypothesis  
and come up with a theory that you think explains it.  If, down the  
road, the actual data disprove your theory then you either have to  
junk it or modify it, but it doesn't mean the underlying method is  
bad.  It's a process that doesn't hold any given theory sacrosanct.   
That's what the creationists and intelligent design folks can't seem  
to grasp.

It seems to me that what you're describing above is simply people  
advocating a theory that hasn't been rigourously enough tested, but  
that is a fault of human nature, not, ultimately, of modelling or  
science.

> So now we have the IPCC making apocalyptic predictions for 100 years  
> out
> based on computer models. Moreover, when NASA takes atmospheric and  
> sea
> temperature measurements to match up against these predictions, they
> don't seem to predict very much accurately even for what's happening
> now. You'll pardon me for skepticism. I'm going to go with the actual
> science as real things are measured.

But that, too, doesn't appear very helpful.  The NASA measurements  
tell you what is happening now, and, if you look back at the record,  
what has happened in the past.  But those data on their own don't tell  
you anything about the future.  (Prediction is a necessary component  
of the scientific method.)  So, given you believe climate change is  
happening, how do you propose to theorise about the future state of  
the climate?  Watch and wait?

> That said, I've recycled my shit for as long as there's been  
> recycling.
> I make do and mend where possible, and even enjoy it. I've cycled to
> school, university and work for my entire life so far. I don't think
> it's a good idea for folks to shit on their own doorstep. It's the  
> sort
> of behaviour that comes back to bite you. So I do think the human race
> should set about cleaning up its shit. I think we should do it because
> it's a sound idea rather than because we should worry about  
> apocalyptic
> predictions of computer geeks.

This is rather frightening but, on that, both you and I agree both in  
theory and practice 100%.  I had better stop before we find ourselves  
agreeing more. >;-)

Cheers,

Paul.