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

[Paul Mather]

On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:02 AM, M Holmes wrote:

>>>>> 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?
>
> This is how argument works. You make a claim. You get asked to back it
> up.

That's all fine and well if I made the claim you claim I made.  But,  
as I didn't, it's reasonable for me to ask why I should go to a lot of  
effort to come up with a statement from the IPCC on something I never  
claimed they advocated.  :-)

> Did you read the prior context? I.E the part about the heat produced  
> by
> nuclear power?

I did, but, like I said, the context was not clear to me.  It was  
obviously clear to you, the author, but that problem happens a lot (to  
me, too), when authors know exactly what it is they mean but fail to  
convey that sufficiently in the words they set down. :-)

(Of course, part of the problem may have been attributable to me not  
paying sufficiently close attention.;)

>> 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.
>
> I see a consensus that global warming exists. I see only an argument  
> about
> how much humans contribute to it.

Well, that's a tricky semantic argument.  If a non-human source  
contributes greatly to warming, but humans kick-started it into play,  
can we say that is a human contribution to warming or a natural one?   
An example of this might be methane deposits that could be released en  
masse into the atmosphere given a sufficient rise (4-5 degrees?) in  
global temperatures.  Such an increase in methane could further  
greatly exacerbate warming, driving up global temperatures  
extensively.  If humans tip the equilibrium such that the methane  
release is triggered, do you say the final warming is contributed by  
humans or is natural?

Other than the semantics above, it was my understanding that the IPCC  
did have a consensus that global warming existed and that increasing  
greenhouse gas concentrations attributable to human activity is  
responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since about  
the 1950s (and that solar radiation and vulcanism are responsible for  
much of the warming prior to that).

Note at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-6.htm the  
relatively small contribution attributed to warming by the IPCC of  
solar (on the far right of the chart) compared to greenhouse gases (on  
the far left).

>> Are you claiming that computer modelling isn't scientific?
>
> Nope. I'm claiming that they're only as good as the model and that  
> there
> will be differences between the model and what happens in reality. The
> longer period of time you try to predict using the model, the more  
> those
> predictions will be at variance with reality.
>
> I'm also warning that we've had apocalyptic predictions from models
> before. The risk from making these warnings based on models is that  
> once
> there's a public perception that the models don't work (as happened  
> with
> the Club of Rome and more recently with the financial "quants"), your
> entire thesis is going to go down the plughole with it.

obFlippancy: In that case, the models work, it's just they don't  
predict reality.  Garbage In, Garbage Out. ;-)

> Suppose global warming is caused by humans and a couple of years down
> the line these models are shown to predict nonsense (we've already got
> discrepancies between what they predict for ocean and atmospheric
> temperatures and what NASA have measured). The public may, in
> exasperation, wash its hands of the whole idea and it will be  
> impossible
> to carry them politically to attack the real problem.

I agree with this entirely.  Science reporting is generally woefully  
poor (Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" column aside:) and there is a  
tendency for several reasons to sensationalise results and present  
them out of correct context or lacking disclaimers.  This will tend to  
erode the public's faith in the science, making it, as you say,  
impossible to muster the political will to attack the problem.

Then, to compound this, excessive doomsaying by reporters and other  
publicity organs and vested interests will also foster a general  
feeling of helplessness amongst the general public, causing many to  
consider the problem unsolvable and so not worth doing anything  
about.  That will also crush any chance of mobilising the political  
will to do anything.

>>> 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?
>
> Make more measurements of the three contributors. Try and come up with
> better theories and models. Test them against the measurements, and  
> for
> Eris's sake, shut the fuck up with the apocalypse stuff. Sooner or  
> later
> people are going to get sick of it and then it will be politically
> impossible to get anything done.
>
> Meanwhile, let's try some geo-engineering experminets to see hwat will
> work to alleviate warming (whatever the source, if it works it works)
> and try a bit harder to get trading in pollution lets up and running  
> so
> that it's in the interest of everyone's bottom line to cut pollution
> either where they are, or somewhere where it's even worse.

I agree with that.  Every little bit helps.  And, remember, individual  
action can accomplish a lot.  But then you know that.

Cheers,

Paul.