history repeats itself
Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas recalls the medieval use of the precautionary principle to fend off climate change.
Posted on March 15th, 2007 by pwyll
Filed under: eco-catastrophe
Pages
-
Archives
Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas recalls the medieval use of the precautionary principle to fend off climate change.
Posted on March 15th, 2007 by pwyll
Filed under: eco-catastrophe
Entries RSS
Ergo:
If Al Gore is lighter than a duck, he must be made of wood. What else burns like wood? Witches. Therefore he is a witch. Let’s get him!
And the point of this post is to equate witch-trials with calls to find alternative energy sources? Is this the way history repeats itself?
Whether our host likes it our not, there are real scientific models which are being tested by serious scientists that predict large-scale global warming. Unfortunately, climate change occurs on such a large time scale that we may get a statistically significant result to these tests at a point that is too late to effect the course of the change. How can this be the case. The answer, as our host well knows, is the concept of phase transition.
The state-space trajectories of complex dynamical systems (which is what the mathematical model of a weather system is) are, in general, in stable “orbits” around a set of equilibrium conditions. However, if conditions are perturbed enough, a system could change rapidly from orbiting one set of equilibria, to orbiting a completely different set of equilibria. The molecular cohesion of water molecules at 99C is virtually indistinguishable from that of water at 50C. Change the temperature by 1 degree and a radically different state emerges. It is a phase transition in the weather that some scientists fear may take place, if certain precautions are not taken.
Yet, rather than admit that some precaution might be in order, our host prefers to allow his hatred of Al Gore and others like him to cloud his judgement.
Better to be safe than sorry? Not damn well if it requires admitting that a liberal may be right about something. *That* particular mind-set of our host seems impervious to any state change perturbations.
Wait, remind me again how many SUV’s were around when the last ice age ended? Or the one before that? There have been 17 ice ages in the past 10 million years. Fact is we get ultimately all our energy from a variable star. Sure some heat comes from radioactivity and pressures and heat deep in the planet. But it ultimately comes from the sun. What are you going to do about that? The sun isn’t going anywhere for another 10 billion years, more or less. Greenhouse gases? The most generous estimate is that 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide are produced by human activity, the rest of the living creatures on the planet produce 200 billion tons annually. What to do about them? Three volcanoes, Mt St. Helens, Mt. Pinattubo, and Mt. Tambora hads put more carbon dioxide, Chlorine, and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than man has since the dawn of the industrial age. Besides, the most dangerous and significant greenhouse gas is water vapor, What are you going to do outlaw water?
Dooley
In reply to RSPL, whose comments I quote in italicized blue.
And the point of this post is to equate witch-trials with calls to find alternative energy sources? Is this the way history repeats itself?
No. In the past, natural climate change was blamed on witchcraft. A natural phenomenon was blamed on human activity. Culprits were identified, and people were killed by the tens of thousands. Then as now, something had to be done.
Anthropogenic global warming is both a weak hypothesis, and a political/religious cause. I believe the hypothesis is mistaken, and the cause is appalling. History is repeating itself in the assignment of blame in advance of facts. I am all for the search for alternative sources of energy. What I oppose is the premature closure of scientific discussion with accusations of ‘climate criminal’ and ‘denier’, and the curtailment of economic freedom out of mere panic.
Whether our host likes it our not, there are real scientific models which are being tested by serious scientists that predict large-scale global warming. Unfortunately, climate change occurs on such a large time scale that we may get a statistically significant result to these tests at a point that is too late to effect the course of the change. How can this be the case. The answer, as our host well knows, is the concept of phase transition.
The state-space trajectories of complex dynamical systems (which is what the mathematical model of a weather system is) are, in general, in stable “orbits” around a set of equilibrium conditions. However, if conditions are perturbed enough, a system could change rapidly from orbiting one set of equilibria, to orbiting a completely different set of equilibria. The molecular cohesion of water molecules at 99C is virtually indistinguishable from that of water at 50C. Change the temperature by 1 degree and a radically different state emerges. It is a phase transition in the weather that some scientists fear may take place, if certain precautions are not taken.
Yet, rather than admit that some precaution might be in order, our host prefers to allow his hatred of Al Gore and others like him to cloud his judgement.
Please. Al Gore is a con man with a profitable scam. As a blogger I am deeply indebted to him as an endless source of material. I no more hate him than I would hate an insect. I know this will be hard to accept, but I actually believe the anthropogenic warming hypothesis is mistaken. I further believe it is being used for a political purposes I oppose: the reduction of human freedom.
As for scientists testing models, why yes, there are. And there are other scientists unconvinced by those same models, and offering competing models. I believe conflicting theories are the nature of science. But the scare mongers claim that discussion is over, the facts are in, and immediate action is a moral imperative. In particular, it is immoral to question whether human activity actually causes global warming.
I am deeply skeptical of arguments that begin with an admission that climate change occurs on long time scales, and then turn around to suggest we have to act NOW, before it is too late. The historical record shows that even on the scale of a few thousand years the earth has been much hotter than it is now. We survived, even the polar bears survived. Climate change is natural, and inevitable. Climate stasis is beyond the reach of current technology. Forgive me for not being scared.
I am not much impressed by computer models. I know too damn well what goes into their making. A model of any size involves thousands of assumptions, any one of which could be critical. Any several of which could interact in unintended ways. A model of any size contains hundreds of bugs, because all software of any size contains hundreds of bugs. But most of all, a model contains an infinite number of omissions. Modern climate models, for instance, seem rather blase about solar variability, the earth’s magnetic field, and the earth’s radiation belts. They focus to the point of obsession on the correlation of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. They care a great deal about correlation, but less so about causality. Historical changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide temporally lag corresponding temperature changes by hundreds of years. The obvious explanation is that raising temperatures cause increased carbon dioxide, and not the other way around.
Better to be safe than sorry? Not damn well if it requires admitting that a liberal may be right about something. *That* particular mind-set of our host seems impervious to any state change perturbations.
You have found me out. I hold my every belief in mere opposition to liberals. They are as gods to me, and in my foolish pride I rebel against their wisdom and even their charity. I persist in my obstinacy, and so must reply.
Why not be safe against speculative disasters? Because that safety comes at too high a price. There is insufficient reason to drastically cut back energy use today for the sake fending off speculative threats decades or centuries from now. We live longer and better lives than our ancestors did because of technology. That technology depends on energy. Giving up a large percentage of our current energy use would directly affect, for the worse, the lives of hundreds of millions of people. In the metaphor of insurance, you propose a very high premium to insure against very speculative risks.
Better safe than sorry is a truism only if being safe comes at no cost. That is not the case here. In this life we cannot avoid risk, but sometimes we can choose which risks to take. I believe rational people can differ in their choices. You seemingly don’t.
As a trustee would snarl in a prison break movie, “Go ahead and [burn me as a witch], you’d be doing me a favor.”
If no one burns me, I’m happy to espouse my National Resources Defense Council rhetoric when it is sound to my shakey scientific ear.
>Better safe than sorry is a truism only if being safe comes at no cost. >That is not the case here. In this life we cannot avoid risk, but >sometimes we can choose which risks to take. I believe rational >people can differ in their choices. You seemingly don’t.
At what point did I indicate that I thought the debate was over, and that rational people can not differ in theirs choices? I readily admitted that *none* of the current data, on either side of the argument, is convincing.
What I was primarily objecting to was the shrill and dogmatic nature of the posts involving the debate on global warming. Your reasonable response above reassures me that you have not joined the anti-global warming religion.
As far as how others use this debate, well, I’m shocked, shocked to learn that certain politicians are using a scientific debate to furthur their own political ends.
Concerning the price tag, none of the simplest options carry much of a price at all. Are you saying that *any* price is too much? At one point the same type of arguments were made for things like seat belts, for god’s sake.
Dooley’s argument is that man’s contribution to the equation is minimal. The numbers he quotes are, of course, disputed. However, my original argument was to suggest that, unfortunately, in some instances small perturbations produce large effects.
Reasonable folks can differ, but in my mind, spending some serious research dollars on the problem is justifiable. Just this would be a significant change for an administration that, until recently, denied the phenomenom even existed.(global-warming of any sort, not the anthropogenic variety)