Global Warming Delusions • Hacker News Board

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#71

Post by lutorm » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 3:29 AM UTC

Rod wrote: post #32

Alex3917 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do you really want to start a debate about the definition of reasonable?" Yes, I do. What is it that makes an article espousing a middle-of-the-road position on global warming reasonable, but an article that espouses taking immediate action to enact a carbon cap unreasonable? Or are we expected to believe that the best course of action is the one that seems reasonable, whatever that means.

We're talking about a very complex problem here, and jumping to conclusions based on unreliable computer simulations and mass hysteria promoted by the media is, indeed, unreasonable.

The problem is indeed very complex, which is why I find it amazing that people who aren't studying the issue in question think they can make statements like this. (If you indeed are doing research in the field, please point me to your papers indicating that the simulations are unreliable to the point that they have no predictive value.)

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#72

Post by lutorm » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 3:30 AM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #46

baguasquirrel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by frami…

I really was trying to stay out of the GW argument specifically. My intent in the response above was just to point out that the WSJ author seems to be assuming people already know the negative side. So it wasn't that he was painting a rosy picture it's just that he was trying to provide supplemental information to what people have already heard. That said, if you're curious, my problem with GW has always been the foc…

Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place.

You don't believe in the concept of insurance, do you?

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#73

Post by jpwagner » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 3:42 AM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #65

War is a much simpler problem than global warming, yet we can't agree its validity or stop it. Given this, both war and global warming are probably inevitable until evolution produces a more rational and forward-thinking dominant species.

In some ways war is a method to divide resources. War is probably inevitable until Earth provides unlimited resources.

"Global warming" is a catch-phrase for the changing environment (setting aside momentarily the always exciting argument over the cause). It is probably inevitable until Earth is more robust.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#74

Post by Rod » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 3:53 AM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #71

Rod wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about a very complex problem here, and jumping to conclusions based on unreliable computer simulations and mass hysteria promoted by the media is, indeed, unreasonable.

The problem is indeed very complex, which is why I find it amazing that people who aren't studying the issue in question think they can make statements like this. (If you indeed are doing research in the field, please point me to your papers indicating that the simulations are unreliable to the point that they have no predictive value.)

I am not doing research in the area, thankfully. I know people who are. I talk to them often, and I have come to the realization that this is an incredibly complex problem. One has to take into account the physics, chemistry, biology of the entire globe... plus the Sun cycles, the cosmic rays, and the effects of man on the environment. It's a daunting task.

I also remember that back in the days I studied Physics, it was widely accepted that computers can't predict the weather more than a couple of weeks in advance due to the chaotic nature of the fluid dynamics equations. If you can't predict reliably more than two weeks in advance, I doubt you can predict 20 years into the future. This is pseudo-science, and while scientists know there's an awful lot of uncertainty in it, these "results" are communicated to the general public as though they were absolute truths, which is nauseatingly unethical, not to mention dishonest.

All in all: I think it's time to take a deep breath, let one's head cool off and analyze the problem scientifically. Fostering fear is dangerous and counter-productive. A massive stampede usually eliminates anything in its path... and that's no solution.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#75

Post by jpwagner » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 4:42 AM UTC

robotrout wrote: post #55

david927 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number 'billions' depends on how high the water rises. Bangladesh and Indonesia alone are 400 million whose population are at risk. >the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly The most crazy/aggressive models from the 1970's said we would lose half the Arctic sea ice by 2050. We hit that point two years ago. If multiple sea shelves collapse, it will indeed come as…

> We hit that point two years ago Come on guys. Why do you say these things? It's literally 5 seconds away in a new browser tab. http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+...

One time I weighed myself at 7am and I was literally 5 lbs lighter than the personal measurement I have ingrained in my head. I was on the verge of wasting away.

I paid careful attention and put together personal regulations: I must eat breakfast, I must eat lunch, I must eat dinner.

By that evening I was 1 pound lighter than my target weight. I was still a bit worried, but felt comforted to know I had averted a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#76

Post by philwelch » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 4:50 AM UTC

jpwagner wrote: post #73

mcantelon wrote: post #65

War is a much simpler problem than global warming, yet we can't agree its validity or stop it. Given this, both war and global warming are probably inevitable until evolution produces a more rational and forward-thinking dominant species.

In some ways war is a method to divide resources. War is probably inevitable until Earth provides unlimited resources. "Global warming" is a catch-phrase for the changing environment (setting aside momentarily the always exciting argument over the cause). It is probably inevitable until Earth is more robust.

War is a method to divide resources, but so is trade. And those parts of the world that trade with each other by and large do not go to war with each other.

In fact, look at the history of the 20th century. Lots of wars between countries that believed in trade and countries that did not believe in trade: this is called the Cold War. After this we started getting wars between countries that were part of the global trading community and countries that weren't, over issues that would largely go away or be resolved peaceably if those countries joined the global trading community.

This is called "globalization", and it's what all those anarchists tend to start riots about every time the larger countries want to have a conference about it.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#77

Post by jpwagner » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 6:04 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #76

jpwagner wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some ways war is a method to divide resources. War is probably inevitable until Earth provides unlimited resources. "Global warming" is a catch-phrase for the changing environment (setting aside momentarily the always exciting argument over the cause). It is probably inevitable until Earth is more robust.

War is a method to divide resources, but so is trade. And those parts of the world that trade with each other by and large do not go to war with each other. In fact, look at the history of the 20th century. Lots of wars between countries that believed in trade and countries that did not believe in trade: this is called the Cold War. After this we started getting wars between countries that were part of the global tra…

to paraphrase your rebuttal: Earth already has enough resources.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#78

Post by cma » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 6:30 AM UTC

robotrout wrote: post #41

baguasquirrel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by frami…

I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though. As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted. I would submit to you that any extra wheat production…

Your comment makes great intuitive sense, but I don't think it is quite so clear cut.

Remember, it is a 2.5 degree global temperature shift being discussed, not a 2.5 degree shift in Canada's temperatures. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is, so the effect of more CO2 is much less pronounced in the lower latitudes. From what I have heard, a 2.5 degree shift in global temperature average caused by increased CO2 would translate into a much larger shift in e.g. Canada's temperatures.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#79

Post by david927 » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 7:24 AM UTC

robotrout wrote: post #55

david927 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number 'billions' depends on how high the water rises. Bangladesh and Indonesia alone are 400 million whose population are at risk. >the most computationally challenged "climate modelers" don't claim this will happen quickly The most crazy/aggressive models from the 1970's said we would lose half the Arctic sea ice by 2050. We hit that point two years ago. If multiple sea shelves collapse, it will indeed come as…

> We hit that point two years ago Come on guys. Why do you say these things? It's literally 5 seconds away in a new browser tab. http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+...

Come on guys. You're using Google to find your points instead of reading.

The fourth quarter report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clarified we have indeed hit the 50% in a third of the time of the most aggressive estimates. The sea ice that has come back is not the same as what was there before: it's the very thin product of a single season.

Re: Global Warming Delusions

#80

Post by baguasquirrel » Sun, Apr 26, 2009, 7:47 AM UTC

robotrout wrote: post #41

baguasquirrel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada. The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by frami…

I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though. As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted. I would submit to you that any extra wheat production…

It is a little more complicated than that.

http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/4632/major-wheat-growing-re...

Different varieties of wheat are adapted to different conditions and some are more productive than others. Ultimately, wheat is still a plant and it still needs water and sun to grow. The climate models suggest that as temperature goes up, midwest droughts will get worse. Natural systems are not orthogonal. A rise in temperature will cause more rainfall in some areas and less rainfall in others.

While we're at it... as you said, wheat is not too finicky. Corn? More finicky. Wonder what will happen to corn. It needs hot, humid summers with just the right amount of rain and sun. When you look at the map from the link, it is pretty apparent there is a big hole in the middle of the "wheat" belt. Hmm I wonder what we grow there? ;)

I wonder where, if at all, that hole is going to move if we have a drier midwest as the admittedly crude climate models predict. And I wonder how a change in climate will impact the current wheat growing regions in terms of rainfall.