Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Timex's Journal: Is "90% sure" good enough? 20

Journal by Timex

A recent JE of mine regarding Global Warming got dismissed pretty quickly, due in no small part to the author of the article (I didn't read up on his qualifications), but I still don't think that the matter is closed.

This article should give some food for thought to those that are convinced that Global Warming is a real threat created by Mankind. From the article:

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months' time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains "very likely" as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Perhaps this is a good time to explain, once and for all, how I feel about the Global Warming "threat":

  1. It's really difficult to convince me that "global warming" is real when I'm freezing my tail off when I go outside[1]. My (heating) oil bill is high, as it usually is this time of year, due (in part) to demand.
  2. If there really is "global warming" going on, it's only a couple degrees over what-- the last hundred years at best, right? What evidence is there that this is man-made, not a natural, cyclic event?

I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about science, but I don't believe there is a soul on this planet that does, either.

As long as that 10% margin is open, even if it were 5%, I'd say that there is plenty of room to prove somebody wrong. I think that any perceived "global warming" is cyclical in nature, and would have happened even if humans were the most environmentally-conscious beings on the face of the earth. There's not a lot we can do to stop it, but if we try, we might be able to slow it down a bit. Maybe.

Now, does this mean that I think we can just plod along into the future, without a care for out environment? Hardly. The way I see it, Mankind were put here to be caretakers of the planet. We should use the resources available to us responsibly. Unfortunately, Mankind has a piss-poor track record. We have been here for a minimum of 6,000 years (how's that for being inclusive? <g>), and what have we got to show for it? a penchant for energy sources that are pollutants at best (fossil fuels) or completely destructive at worst (nuclear reactors, if Something Bad happens).

I'm still greatly amused (in a perverse sort of way) that many environmentalists (and there are a lot of them in Massachusetts) are against using nuclear power or fossil fuels to generate power, but they don't want anything to do with wind farms or wave generators, because the lights that would warn water craft to steer clear would affect their view of the ocean. (This is one of several reasons given to Beacon Hill in opposition to a planned wind farm in Nantucket Sound.) Typical Americans: "We want a solution to our (energy) problems, but Not In My Back Yard!"

Yes, we have to take care of what we have, but don't do it because someone is scaring you into doing so. Do it because it's the right thing to do.

[1] I live in Massachusetts. Winter seems to have had a slow start this year, but it's apparently trying to make up for lost time. Parts of New York state had over ten feet of snow dropped on them, and more is coming. That storm (the "more" part) is forecast to be coming our way. Oh, joy.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is "90% sure" good enough? More

Is "90% sure" good enough?

Comments Filter:
  • It comes across like you don't want to believe in global warming because that's what the cool kids do. It's one thing to say that there is global warming, but it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases (it's all due to solar radiation obviously). It's another to have your two reasons why you don't think global warming is real be explained by the scientific community within 3 minutes of internet searching.

    There are times when you have to sit back and stop trying to find someone to validate your opinion. You
    • t comes across like you don't want to believe in global warming because that's what the cool kids do.

      That's funny, dispute global warming on the slashdot front page and your karma fall...

      There are times when you have to sit back and stop trying to find someone to validate your opinion. You can't be an expert in everything, and if you aren't going to put the time in to get the basic facts about climate change why not trust the people who are experts.

      Which experts? The ones that say it's real, and al

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Timex ( 11710 ) *

        t comes across like you don't want to believe in global warming because that's what the cool kids do.

        That's funny, dispute global warming on the slashdot front page and your karma fall...

        Don't I know it. I'd like to know what my karma is in numbers...

        why not trust the people who are experts.

        Which experts? The ones that say it's real, and all people's fault, the ones that say it's real, but due to an increase in solar radiation, or the experts that say it's not real, and part of a natural cycle?

        Or maybe we should trust the experts who, in the 1970's, were absolutely sure another ice age was looming - warning about Global Cooling.

        You hit the nail on the head. I've learned two, maybe three different reasons for why our weather does what it does since I was in grade school. Every theory was supported by "experts". There's nothing wrong with

  • It's useful to keep in mind the definition of "temperature":

    Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter.

    Keeping this in mind, it's possible to see that global warming has very little to do with one not freezing one's ass off now and then. Instead, it's referring to the atmosphere having more energy in it. That's more available energy for existing weather processes to tap into. (So for instance, a more energetic snowstorm might pick up more moisture over the

    • Keeping this in mind, it's possible to see that global warming has very little to do with one not freezing one's ass off now and then.

      Now please tell that to the global warming lobby, who point to every sunbather in summer as "proof" of their theory that we'll all bake in the next 30 seconds if we don't switch to bicycles or hemp-powered steam engines... :-)

      Instead, it's referring to the atmosphere having more energy in it.

      More specifically, it's a reference to the atmosphere - on average - being nearl

      • "Er, if it's "as cold as usual", it has the same kinetic energy present as usual, so how can it be "more energetic" despite having the same amount of energy?"

        Sorry, I was writing whilst sleepy and was not really clear.

        At least around here, we only get snow when warm wet marine air meets cold dry inland air. If the marine air is warmer, it has the capacity to gather and carry more moisture. If it meets a cold dry system that's as cold as usual, then there is more moisture available to be precipitated as snow

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Timex ( 11710 ) *

        More specifically, it's a reference to the atmosphere - on average - being nearly one degree (C) hotter than it was a century ago. (There are other forms of energy present in the atmosphere, too, of course.)

        This is largely why I'm not worried about it, whether it's "real" or "imagined". I still think that we should take care of our environment, but that's because of a sense of responsibility, not because some whacked-out tree hugger told me to, or whatever the latest fad-theory-of-the-moment is.

      • Now please tell that to the global warming lobby, who point to every sunbather in summer as "proof" of their theory that we'll all bake in the next 30 seconds if we don't switch to bicycles or hemp-powered steam engines... :-)

        I've got a much better reason- it will keep us from getting nuked by stupid Islamic extremeists. Cut down on energy useage, kill the need to be involved in the middle east- so why not do it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nizo ( 81281 ) *
      I've always thought the same thing: just because global averages are going up, doesn't mean everyone is gonna be in for a heatwave (well, except anyplace that has ice all year; I think we can kiss most of the year-round ice sheets goodbye at this point). We can measure the problem, but humans are notoriously poor at guessing outcomes (especially the weather; the local weatherguys are great at telling me what the weather is like right now, or what it was like earlier today, but they can't even get tomorrows
  • As a result of climate change, we can expect to see more extreme weather. "Global Warming" is a bad name to choose for these theories and many scientists seem to be using the term "climate change" more and more. It is supposedly not just about warming things up, but upsetting existing climate patterns by introducing more energy into the system.

    Personally I have yet to be convinced either way. Without a control study, it is impossible to be 100% certain that anything we have done has had any significant effe
    • Without a control study...


      Can I please be part of the control group in that study? Thanks.

    • "Personally I have yet to be convinced either way. Without a control study, it is impossible to be 100% certain that anything we have done has had any significant effect either way. Many climate studies have shown cyclical variability in average temperatures over many thousands of years - who's to say that the rise in average temperatures over the past century isn't just a natural part of the cyclical variability?"

      I'd agree that it's impossible to be certain. However, it seems to me that the preoponderance

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *

      As a result of climate change, we can expect to see more extreme weather.

      Maybe, maybe not. A lot of severe weather is caused by differences in temperatures, not absolute amounts of temperature, and "global warming" in some cases could result in an evening of temperatures, or a proportional increase, so that differences are either diminished or maintained, thus decreasing severe weather, or maintaining it. And, of course, a few more bad storms might be a small price to pay for increased arable farmland.

      We just don't know.

      Personally I have yet to be convinced either way. Without a control study, it is impossible to be 100% certain that anything we have done has had any significant effect either way.

      Which is why these scientists are being deceptive. The

  • Perhaps this is a good time to explain, once and for all, how I feel about the Global Warming "threat":
    1. It's really difficult to convince me that "global warming" is real when I'm freezing my tail off when I go outside[1]. My (heating) oil bill is high, as it usually is this time of year, due (in part) to demand.

    Once again, you're confusing long time climate changes and local immediate weather. Here's a hint- AVERAGE global temperature changes will mean some parts get colder, some parts get hotter

    • The problem is that when it gets to the point that we can convince everyone, it'll be because we're all dead from global warming.

      Even russian roulette has less than 20% chance of killing you ...

      We've already passed the tipping point and are into a zone of positive feedback, and may need a somewhat-controlled nuclear exchange to "put things right," on the over-population, consumption, and global albedo fronts.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) *
        That's one way to go. Another way to go is to use the new moisture farming windmill to reforest the deserts in bamboo from the local humidity (I just heard another Australian news podcast about it- the latest model can provide 6 gallons a day on 3% humidity and 1km/hr wind speed. Doesn't make much electricity at those rates, but it's plenty of water for raising the bamboo if you start your forest with 1 bamboo plant and 1 windmill per acre. By the time the bamboo is using more than 6 gallons per day of w

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Timex ( 11710 ) *

      Perhaps this is a good time to explain, once and for all, how I feel about the Global Warming "threat":

      1. It's really difficult to convince me that "global warming" is real when I'm freezing my tail off when I go outside[1]. My (heating) oil bill is high, as it usually is this time of year, due (in part) to demand.

      Once again, you're confusing long time climate changes and local immediate weather. Here's a hint- AVERAGE global temperature changes will mean some parts get colder, some parts get hotter, and the average going up in general .01 degrees might mean we reach a tipping point where greenhouse gas emissions are more natural than manmade *even if the original cause was manmade*.

      Solution: Plant more trees. They take in CO2, put out O... Next?

      Way too much carbon and sulfur is lying about as ice on the sea floor, in forests that release it when they burn, in tundra plains that relase it when they melt, for it to be any other way.


      2. If there really is "global warming" going on, it's only a couple degrees over what-- the last hundred years at best, right?

      Even .01 degree can mess up the world's weather enough to cause a tipping point, as explained above.

      ....and we would notice this how, without some wingnut like Al Gore going off on a complete tangent, because he has nothing better to do with his time?

      What evidence is there that this is man-made, not a natural, cyclic event?

      Right now, the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years is about 33%. CO2 samples can be carbon dated to tell if they are from natural sources or fossil sources.

      The problem here is that (1) our records don't go back far enough to determine accurate cycles, so we really can't tell if this is cyclic or not. Carbon dating isn't accurate enough to do anything useful. Period. Even scientists that refer to it give fairly wide ranges when using it as a

      • Solution: Plant more trees. They take in CO2, put out O... Next?

        See below- that's completely the correct answer.

        The problem here is that (1) our records don't go back far enough to determine accurate cycles, so we really can't tell if this is cyclic or not.

        True- it could be an 880,000 year cycle (that's how far our records of CO2 go back- want more, the records are there, but it's hard enough to examine a 2 mile long ice core as is). But the key here is *fossil fuel ratios in the present*, not the le

Slashdot Top Deals

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. - Mark Twain

Close