Hi Guys,
About a week ago, I was startled by a MFO forum member who challenged the benefits of the Industrial Revolution when I injected it into an innocuous submittal.. A number of email exchanges were completed, and degenerated into a very disjointed chain of claims and counterclaims. The exchanges developed in a helter-skelter manner, and wandered into such disparate topics like the merits of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan to end WWII, like the impact of the Industrial Revolution on slavery in the United States, and for the purposes of this posting like Global Warming.
I took the position that Global Warming and the climate science that produced that forecast were not done deals. The evidence was not irrefutable as suggested by the MFO participant. She claimed and referenced a report that 98 % of the scientific community agrees with the Global Warming hypothesis. I object to that proclamation. Apparently so do a growing number of respected scientists far more qualified to address this complex issue than I am.
This dissenting cohort published a rebuttal letter in Friday’s WSJ. Here is a link to their article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.htmlThe Global Warming issue is still controversial, so irrefutable claims one way or the other must be interpreted with careful skepticism.
Chaos Theory, based on the butterfly effect discovered by Edward Lorenez and popularized by James Gleick in his 1987 book “Chaos, Making a New Science”, essentially concluded that even weather changes (much less climate change) can not be reliably forecasted because of extreme sensitivity to initial condition inputs and multiple solutions prompted by nonlinear governing equations with uncertain and unknowable feedback loops.
Also, research and researcher findings are often distorted by reporting biases and self-interest from the researchers themselves. As reported by Christopher Booker in “The BBC and an inconvenient truth about climate change” when addressing inaccurate reporting by the BBC:
“The irony is that just when the BBC was going into overdrive with its propaganda, the real ‘global warming’ story was beginning to take a very different turn: none of the predictions made by the doom-mongers were coming true. The inconvenient truth was that the measured temperatures did NOT match the climate model’s predictions.”
Scientists and engineers hate this outcome, but usually accept the data and modify their models accordingly. To continue the Booker quote:
“Temperatures were not continuing to rise as the IPCC’s computer models had predicted they should. The ice caps were not seriously melting; polar bears were not vanishing; sea levels were not dangerously rising; heat waves, hurricanes and droughts were not becoming more frequent, as Nobel Prize-winner Al Gore and the IPCC panel had insisted they must.”
Much of the scientist polling data reflects the way the climate change issue is phrased. Many deal with man-made contributions. Most scientists would agree that mankind contributes as a heat source. I do.
Given the complexity of the climate change debate, a heavy dose of skepticism is a necessary asset for a neutral reviewer to sort through the sometimes biased scientific and emotional environmental claims.
I am constantly puzzled by the debate that rages about humans as a source of global warming. Of course, humans generate heat; that is a no-brainer. Humans sustain themselves by ingesting food and absorbing sunlight to fuel their numerous bodily and work functions. Heat is a natural exhaust byproduct of all such activity.
Therefore, it is not surprising why a huge percentage of the scientific community agrees that anthropogenic (man made) climate change (ACC) contributes to global warming. I do. What is surprising is why that statistic is not 100 percent. The real issue is the framing of the debate as to its significance given the chaotic character of other heating mechanisms such as solar heating variations and natural disasters like volcano eruptions that randomly alter the heat load inputs. Also population growth varies with time controlled by economic, government, religious, and earth resource impacts. People adapt and adopt.
Allow me to introduce a simple imperfect analogy (no analogy is perfect) that captures some of the elements under discussion. Consider a task to size an air conditioning unit for a large space that is inhabited by workers and machinery. A conventional energy balance (heat in and heat out) considers all sources of heat exchange.
The human heat input has long been recognized when designing air conditioning equipment installations. Folks are heat engines. It is standard engineering practice to conservatively estimate the maximum potential people occupying any controlled space to size the unit. Increase the number of people and the heat load increases. However, the people factor must always be put in context relative to other heat exchange mechanisms.
If the heat load demand is dominated by endogenous heat producing equipment and/or by exogenous heating (like from the Sun), then the people factor is an irrelevant consideration. In a nuclear power plant, increasing the operator population by several factors does not practically change the air condition requirements. Everything must be put in proper context. Has the energy demands of our global population reached a tipping point for the Earth’s resources and temperature is a question that has not been settled. Regardless, people adapt and adopt.
The WSJ article I referenced takes the same position that I do. It is not anti-environment.
I have never shared an acquaintance with a willy-nilly anti-environmental person. I too favor a pro-environment policy, but not exclusively. Compromises between industry, Capitalism, and the environment must be hammered out.
Mankind prospered after the Industrial Revolution; it was a tipping point that was worldwide in scope. Although imperfect, Capitalism has survived the destructive fires of time because it is the best economic system yet devised.
Pro-Capitalism and pro-environment are NOT mutually exclusive positions. Capitalism and Environmentalism are not bifurcated by a two position toggle switch. A full spectrum of possible options are typically accessible. Tradeoffs must be assessed using some cost/benefit evaluation. One problem is that the True Believer environmentalist does not acknowledge the existence of such a tradeoff. Sadly, he/she loses the high ground because of that militant, take-no-prisoner attitude. That is a loser’s game.
It is not rocket science to understand that the environment is at risk with a burgeoning world demographic. Population growth will constantly stress test the environment because we humans are heat engines that require a fuel input. Some demographic wizards place the maximum population that the Earth can sustain at the 9 billion mark. I have no idea how reliable that forecast is.
I do know that forecasting is a very hazardous business and has recorded fantastically inaccurate predictions. In the computer business alone you may recall IBM Tom Watson’s 1943 proclamation that the world market for mainframes would peak at five, or DEC president Ken Olsen’s 1977 announcement that there is no purpose for an individual to own a computer, or Microsoft founder Bill Gates 1981 observation that 64K should be ample memory for any personal computer.
How wrong can experts be? Plenty wrong, as the three examples cited illustrate. Experts can not forecast the future any better than we can. Scientists and engineers understand the balance between environmental damage and productivity probably better than the average citizen. Efficient use of resources has continuously been a guiding principle, especially emphasized in today’s complex and interactive world.
Thank you all for your patience and your participation.
Best Regards.
Comments
I'm a card carrying tree-huggin, dirt-munchin druid. However, I've never seen a decent environmental proposal or plan that wasn't cost beneficial. And I'll go so far as to state that any environmental suggestion that is not cost beneficial is utter rubbish and needs to be rethought. In addition, countless damage was done by the zealots who believed the ends justified the means to such a degree as to exaggerate, etc. I've always disliked the tactic of exaggeration to make a point. Sorry. Let's just talk about the facts and all the costs and benefits including the externalities.
Global warming, or climate change as is politically correct, is a fact. The springs are coming sooner, the falls is lasting longer and there are more severe weather events. Anyone who gardens or grows plants is aware of this.
Indeed, the plant hardiness zones are shifting northwards and have been for several decades.
http://blog.syracuse.com/cny/2012/01/in_the_zone_usdas_new_hardiness_map_shows_were_getting_warmer.html
That said, who's to blame? I'm sure there are many causes but we all know that mankind is helping fan the fire. Are we going to stop development? Hardly. Was the industrial revolution bad? Hardly. Are the variations on the development theme that are more damaging to the environment than others. Yeppers. Were there abuses to the environment during the IR. Yeppers.
However, we need to be practical about things. If it was OK for me to use DDT or Clordane and I did, don't punish my grandkids for it. If it wasn't OK and I still used it, lock me up. So many of our legacy environmental problems were created legally under the existing laws. Do we need to clean them up? Sure.
I also strongly feel that capitalism and environmentalism can not only coexist, but actually develope a symbiotic relationship. Natural Capitalism is a great read and describes by many examples, a working environmental approach to capitalism.
First however, you have to count all the costs and benefits AND the externalities. You also need to put a value of things we take for granted and blow off from the ledger books like clean water, clean air, etc.
What seems to be the trend with too many of our companies today is that they want to pass along all the external costs to the general public. If I dirty the ground water and don't clean it up, that's an external cost that I'm shirking. I see it as no different from me not listing my salary on the books.
Oh, and my solution to global warming. Plant trees. Put mother nature to work as she's the heavy lifter.
peace,
rono
The other is whether it is human caused.
As a long time mountaineer and skier, I have personally witnessed the changes in glaciers since the 1970s. Based on photos I have seeen, even in 1970s glaciers were much smaller than in the 1930s. Since 1970s, in Oregon, large glaciers have shrunk dramatically. In Colorado, "permanent" snowfields identified in climbing guide books have disappeared in the past 10-15 years. Glacier National Park is losing its glaciers and may need to be renamed "Glacier-less National Park."
As Rono says, plant hardiness zones are changing. Just this week, the Dept of Agriculture again shifted its zones northward. Insects and plant diseases which used to be controlled by winter are now increasing. I have not heard those who claim global warming is not occurring explain away these facts.
The cited WSJ article made the claim that "alarmism offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes." That's nonsense -- I have never heard that argument to raise taxes. Possibly, it might be true that some crackpots have used that argument, but to generalize as the statement did is deceitful.
The claim in the original post "Humans sustain themselves by ... absorbing sunlight to fuel their numerous bodily and work functions" is complete nonsense. Plants use sunlight to sustain themselves; humans do not. Yes it is true we need some sunlight for vitamin D, but to say we "sustain" ourselves with it, and equate it with food...
The fact that a handful of scientists (or even as many as 2%) may disagree with global warming science in no way invalidates the claim that "98% of the scientific community agrees with the global warming hypothesis."
I do believe that too often environmentalists are said to make outrageous claims. A major source of the problem here is the media. They prefer newsworthy soundbites, rather than complicated explanations. I have grown to be sceptical of outrageous claims by the media, on either side. It tends to oversimplify in order to draw interest. For example, I would take the "facts" in the WSJ letter with a grain of salt. I personally don't know all the "facts" but I can spot when people proclaim obvious falsehoods and logical inconsistencies, some of which I identified above.
Logical inconsistencies and outrageously false claims do not lend credence to a case.
An excellent recent book which examines the claims and counter-claims of global warming in general is "Driven to Extinction" . In addition to looking at the scientific evidence, it looks at the role of internal disagreements within the scientific community, and the role of the popular press.
Booker (cited in the original post) is a long-standing critic of global warming. His article is interesting, and makes headlines, but is it accurate?. One should also look to the writings of those who refutes Booker's specific claims. See this site:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/09/does-booker-believe-in-listening-to-experts.
Incidentally, capitalism, as discussed by Adam Smith, is less than 200 years old. The Roman Empire (including the Republic and the expansion of Rome beyond the Italian peninsula) lasted from about 264 BC to about 370 AD, when barbarians began to attack -- roughly 630 years. It's too early to make claims about the greatness of capitalism. Rome was at its greatest about 300-400 years after 264 BC. It's too early to claim "capitalism is the best economic system yet devised." Maybe it is now temporarily appears to be the "best" to many, but will it stand the test of time? And, one should always ask "best for whom"?
Finally, one needs to ask "what form of capitalism is the best"? Is the capitalism we currently have in the U.S. the capitalism as originally envisioned? Or has it been distorted so it is not really capitalism in the ideal? Is a capitalism controlled by an oligarchy of the wealthy the best? Or is it better to have a capitalism which is regulated so that the ordinary, living, breathing people (rather than corporate "people") can participate fully?
To quote Rono
Peace
What is fascinating to me is to watch climate science deniers like yourself cling to your old belief system and refuse to acknowledge when they're wrong. To me starting a new thread and failing to respond to my existing comments simply because they make you uncomfortable shows a real lack of intellectual integrity. In the other thread you've abandoned I said that 98 percent of climate scientists think global warming is a reality and your initial response to my statement was to condescendingly reply "I can only speculate about your scientific background. But, the common understanding that “98 % of climate scientists now believe that global warming is a reality” is statistically inaccurate. It is a falsehood grossly exaggerated and perpetuated by environmentalists for various nefarious reasons." Then I provided hard evidence of a poll cited in the Washington Post finding that 98 percent of climate scientists do believe global warming is a reality and of human origin and instead of responding to the evidence you start a new thread with this dubious Wall Street Journal op-ed. A more intellectually honest person would apologize and simply admit they were wrong about the stats. But an ideologue like yourself will always insist they're right despite the evidence.
I do not claim that global warming is 100 percent accurate or that the forecasting of how much the earth's temperature will increase is a precise science. But here you state, "Given the complexity of the climate change debate, a heavy dose of skepticism is a necessary asset for a neutral reviewer to sort through the sometimes biased scientific and emotional environmental claims." Are you honest enough to admit that a "heavy does of skepticism" is also necessary for those who say global warming is a fiction and nothing to worry about since they also can be biased and influenced by economic interests far more powerful than the IPCC--namely the oil industry which has financed a massive counter climate science pr campaign and science of dubious authenticity purely for economic non-scientific motives?
For instance, a number of the "scientists" who signed that Wall Street Journal op-ed used to work for the Department of Energy such as William Happer. Another of the scientists who signed Claude Allegre has been widely criticized for his scientific methods towards climate change. From Wikipedia: "In 2010, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre’s book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book is "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies". One researcher, Hakan Grudd, called the changes that Allegre made in hand-redrawing a graph of his misleading and unethical." Meanwhile, another of the "scientists" who signed, J. Scott Armstrong, isn't really a scientist but a professor of business at the Wharton School. Is it at all possible to you that these authors of the op-ed may have their own political biases? Is it at all possible that the Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch, widely known as one of the most conservative political figures in the world, might have its own biases as well evidenced on its op-ed page?
Is it possible climate science is wrong? Absolutely. But it won't be because it is economically inconvenient for you, the oil industry and other climate science deniers say its so. Admit your own biases before you attack the scientific community. And admit that you were wrong about the stats on the scientists who believe that climate change is real. Have the integrity to do it.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/07/10038669-in-texas-worst-drought-on-record-trees-dying-by-the-millions
Because of extreme drought we had some very bad forest fires last year in the area. Typically burn bans and water restrictions would be eased or lifted during winter and this winter most cities and counties are continuing the restrictions.
Another note is that Africanized Bees are now seen in further north than they used to be.
There is a change happening for people that wants to see. If it is man made or not is another question. I believe humans is one of the factors beyond it. Yet another question is that can we do something about it? I believe yes but there is a cost for it and some industries are not willing to embrace the change because of the cost. They will lobby against doing something until the day of reckoning. It might take a couple generations for that.
The responses to my Global Warning submittal were enlightening and entertaining, if not always accurate or fair. The posts often tell a lot about the posters themselves.
Unlike Rono, I am not a tree hugger. I would never apply that descriptor since it is often a pejorative term used to defame environmentalists. I respect environmental principles, but I abhor the extreme environmentalist who sees evil in most everything that mankind does. Maintaining our high standard of living while simultaneously integrating environmental imperatives must be a top priority.
With respect to the Global Warning issue, I am agnostic. My postings said so repeatedly. It is not that the subject is too complex for my understanding. I simply believe that the jury is still collecting, assessing, and interpreting the accumulating evidence and the testimony of experts in the climate disciplines. That expert opinion is all over the map, so I’m withholding any final judgments.
Not being a confessed tree hugger or a committed environmentalist allows me the freedom of flexibility. Eventually, I will decide whenever the evidence becomes compelling. A healthy skepticism is a mandatory prerequisite on this emotional matter. Perhaps the environmental clan will be proven correct in their assessments; time will reveal the truth. At this juncture, I surely do not know. Our environment program expenditures should reflect that uncertainty; be sure you aim at the right target before blasting away.
The media coverage and the environmental lobbies have dominated presentations to the general public. Some resemble propaganda mills. This unbalance leads to misunderstanding and mischief. The primary reason for my Link to the WSJ article was my attempt to redress the information unbalance.
I certainly did not agree with all the arguments made by the authors of the WSJ article. I sense some of their opinions are unfair and some are overstated.
I concur with StevieG’s observation that Christopher Booker is an anti-global warming advocate. He has been so forever, but he might be right. That’s why I only quoted him, but did not Link to his works. But that is precisely why I did Link to the WSJ article. The WSJ authors are a respected amalgam of scientists from multiple research organizations representing multiple scientific disciplines. This is a formidable group.
The 16 knowledgeable scientists include a physics professor from Princeton, a technology professor from Cambridge, a professor of atmospheric sciences from MIT, the Rockefeller University head of their Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. As a cohort, these distinguished experts do not presently interpret the data as irrefutable. They seek ( just as I seek) a fair presentation and airing of the data.
The replies by all posters were thoughtful and well crafted.. Yet a few were deceptive on several levels.
For example, when quoting me, StevieG used the “…..” truncation technique (ellipses) to distort my statement. He inserted ellipses and by so doing modified the crux of my comments. In context, I said: “Humans sustain themselves by ingesting food and absorbing sunlight to fuel their numerous bodily and work functions. Heat is a natural exhaust byproduct of all such activity.” The main thrust of my statement is that humans are heat engines and obviously contribute to global warming. Add a baby to the world population and global warming incrementally increases.
I surely recognize, understand, and admire some of the Environmentalist’s arguments. I welcome their right to express their viewpoints vigorously. But I do not accept their distortions of the facts or their misrepresentations of my positions on the matter. Also, they often do their arguments a disservice by conflating the Global Warming issue with other emotional issues like the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism. You may not respect either Capitalism or the Industrial Revolution, but recognize the fact that these are done deals. Like it or not, the world has fundamentally accepted, adopted and adapted them.
The fall of the USSR and the dynamics within China signaled the final failures of economic systems that challenged Capitalism. As I observed in my initial post, Capitalism is “yet” the surviving economic system. I have no idea if, when, or by what form its replacement assumes.
Why StevieG introduced the Roman Empire into the current discussion puzzles me. Empires rise and fall. The hazard of predicting the longevity of any Empire fits nicely into my argument that forecasting is a fool’s task. He said: “It's too early to claim "capitalism is the best economic system yet devised.” Admittedly Capitalism is less than perfect. I wonder if anyone can recommend a better economic system. Perhaps it is Natural Capitalism as StevieG speculated.
After all these centuries, historians still debate over the fall of the Roman Empire. Edward Gibbon concluded that Christianity caused its demise; Paul Kennedy favored military overexpansion and adventurism as the culprits; David Landes blamed the failure as a “sliding into tyrannical autocracy”. Whatever the causes, it must have a complex structure since the debate has raged for so many centuries.
To be a bit picayune, the Adam Smith book was published in 1775, so it has guided economic thinking for well over 200 years. Modern economics began in 1776 with the publication of his seminal work. Mark Skousen remarked in his “The Making of Modern Economics” book: “The Wealth of Nations offered a formula for emancipating the workingman from the drudgery of a Hobbesian world”. By all standards, Adam Smith is considered the grandfather of modern economics.
I do own a copy of the 1999 book “Natural Capitalism” by Paul Hawken and the Lovin team. It makes some excellent points. Perhaps I should dust it off. Application of the principles championed by the authors will save energy through application of better technology methods; every day scientists and engineers strive to do so. But rewards must be measured against increased costs.
The authors correctly recommend a system-wide approach to enhance efficiency. They somewhat harmed their position by projecting that 90 % to 95 % energy savings and material depletion reductions can be gained by applying their proposals. That’s hard to swallow. As economists would say: If those types of gains and savings were indeed feasible, they would have been eagerly and happily adopted. Given that shortcoming, we certainly should strive to achieve their noble goals.
I like Rono’s recommendation to plant trees. Scientific planting makes a huge difference. Anecdotally, I visited the site of the Mount St. Helens 1980 eruption about a decade after the event. The government had decided to allow nature to replenish the destroyed forest; Weyerhaeuser, located directly adjacent to the Park, elected to replant immediately. The contrast was amazing. The government lands barely sustained scrubs; the Weyerhaeuser property was a dense forest growing at a 3-foot annual rate. Economic incentives motivate and work.
A few years after the late 1950s Sputnik launch, I worked in San Diego designing the aerodynamic covering (a nacelle) over commercial aircraft engines. At that time, our engineering staff was supplemented with what our recent arrivals called the Foreign Legion, mostly populated with German scientists and engineers. The competition to acquire these productive people between the US and the USSR was deadly serious. We Americans jokingly would say that we had an advantage since our German scientists were better than their German scientists.
The True Believer Environmentalists takes the same position, except not jokingly. For instance, the credibility of a scientist from her confirmation-biased perspective is the acid test of global warming. If a scientist concludes that global warming is real and an imminent danger, that scientist is trustworthy and truthful; if the scientist doubts the irrefutability of that same acid test, he is labeled as dishonest and corrupt. That is the signature of a True Believer. Whatever happened to fair and open debate?
I am neutral on the Global Warming issue. I believe the climate models are incomplete, and the existing data sets allow for alternate interpretations. There is nothing evil about not making a premature judgment. I firmly believe that forecasting is notoriously inaccurate. My initial posting referenced flawed forecasts from seasoned computer experts to illustrate my doubts about forecasting acumen.
Look, scientists disagree all the time, mostly because of valid disputes, less often for fraudulent reasons. As Winston Churchill famously remarked, “If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.” Science is uncertain and exciting stuff.
Irrespective of our disagreements on this subject, I really do appreciate the efforts everyone expended (energy, added heat load) to contribute to this discussion. Thank you. It takes time to sort through this tangled mess.
Best Wishes.
"You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style," Nabokov said. And the greatest ideologues always gloss over their extremism with a veneer of rationality. You present yourself as this objective observer who is "neutral on the Global Warming issue" and me as some sort of extremist or "True Believer" as you say. But by definition an extremist is someone whose views are outside the normal range. That's what makes them extreme. Here we have a situation where 98 percent of climate scientists believe global warming is a reality and of human origin and only 2 percent have serious doubts. You are among that 2 percent and therefore are the extremist.
Nor did I ever say that global warming is a certainty and that only scientists who believe it are by definition correct. No, I think scientists are often wrong. But you started off your previous thread with a lament over the lack of respect in America for science and how wonderful all of the productivity science has created via the industrial revolution. Now I have revealed to you an area of scientific inquiry, in which the vast majority of its participants believe all that wonderful production is killing our environment and suddenly you're uncomfortable with their science. It is only the scientists who confirm your preconceived ideology about capitalism you like. So who is really the true believer here?
No, you're no tree hugger. But you are a globalist and ogopolist. I won't say free market libertarian because we don't live in a free market and haven't lived in one since the early 19th century. And your globalism is a far more dogmatic ideology than anything you'll ever find in environmentalist quarters.
As far as science goes, what would Heisenberg say about your supposed neutrality? We live in a subjective world in the 21st century. Own up to your own opinions and stop passing off your own passive aggressive hatred for the tree huggers of the world as reason.
I don't believe that there is any possible reason to question the overall climate warming and the loss of glaciers. Frankly, I think that given the fact that the predictive models are relatively new science, it's an unworthy quibble to disown them because they lack some degree of accuracy, or that the actual melt rate diverges from the prediction model. The only questions, for me, are-
• how much impact are we humans responsible for?
• has this impact brought us either very close to or even over the "tipping point"?
• if so, what, if anything, can we reasonably do to offset or diminish this impact?
Any engineer understands that some processes are not linear- that there are sometimes inherent feedback mechanisms which can cause a runaway cascade effect if some parameters are pushed past a certain point. This is what is generally referred to by non-engineers as the so-called "tipping point".
Regards- OJ
Hi Guys,
Today, following its well established fairness policy, the WSJ published a rebuttal to the opinion letter that I referenced in my opening post on the climate controversy. The WSJ typically collects responses for several days, and then selects a well-reasoned counter to the original opinion letter on the topic. The rebuttal was signed by a formidable array of climate scientists.
Here is the Link to the rebuttal:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
Please access it for a more complete understanding of the debate. There are definitely two sides to the arguments.
That is precisely the reason why I consider the science to be unsettled. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue.
Allow me to summarize a few of the salient factors that helped inform my perspective on the matter.
The world population is increasing, and humans are energy balance engines that produce heat as a byproduct of body chemistry. More people, more heat and a resultant temperature rise if all other things are constant.
That last constraint of all other things being constant is critical. Scientists and engineers are resourceful folks. They are motivated by economic and efficiency goals, and they have responded successfully. With time, we use resources more efficiently. One of the bibles of the environmental movement, Paul Hawken’s “Natural Capitalism”, probably overstates its benefits, but it is actively being pursued to stretch the World’s total resources. Tradeoffs exist.
The climate modeling is still in an incomplete form. It is being constantly upgraded. That’s good, but past forecasts are unreliable because of the complexity of the modeling, and the incomplete data sets that drive its specific subroutines.
That is why, I opened my dialogue on this subject by referring to Chaos Theory.
You are all probably familiar with the Butterfly effect. Recall, the hypothesis is when a butterfly flaps its wings in Argentina , a hurricane sweeps our Gulf Coast a week later.
But are you familiar with the genesis of that fascinating tale? It has a scientific origin that initiated in the laboratory of MIT meteorologist Edward Lorenz’s computer simulations.
The story goes like this.
In the early 1960s, Ed Lorenz was doing simplified weather forecasts using computer simulations. He ran many cases with identical initial conditions as demonstrations for visitors. To save computer time, he decided to only run the final portion of the simulation by using intermediate results to start the later-time simulation. Forecasted results diverged dramatically with minor input differences associated with round-off differences in the computer inputs (like in the eighth digital place).
Lorenz discovered this accidentally. His discovery crystallized the sensitivity of forecasts to initial conditions when the problem is nonlinear in character with complex feedback loops. These complex systems have an extreme dependence on initial conditions. We simply do not measure these initial conditions with sufficient accuracy, and we do not model the complex interactions with sufficient fidelity to make reliable, trustworthy predictions. The science is maturing, but it is not yet settled.
Since this debate is embedded in the MFO forum, it is appropriate to observe that it has an analogue connection with the impossibility of accurately forecasting marketplace movements in the intermediate term. There are simply too many moving parts, too much uncertainty with respect to initial conditions, and an incomplete understanding of the highly coupled driving mechanisms.
Given that state of affairs, it is prudent to limit expenditures until some resolution develops. The climate change forecasts have not materialized anywhere near the extremes forecasted by the Global Warming cohort, especially in its earlier history. Some prudent pilot scale programs are warranted. We have decades of time to further assess climate trendlines to allow us to adapt and adopt.
I mentioned that I did not agree with all the proclamations made in the original WSJ opinion letter. I do not agree with all the assertions made in the currently referenced counter opinion letter. Remember, these are opinions, not settled science.
This a great illustration of the my scientists against your scientists scenario that I discussed earlier. It resolves nothing.
I particularly dislike the ad hominem personal attacks from both sides of the controversy. These distract from the pure science. I certainly recognize that each side is influenced by economic factors that are outside the domain of climate modeling. We all respond to incentives. As outside observers to this complex scientific debate, we must factor that reality into our assessments. Be skeptical, be very skeptical indeed.
Best Wishes.
peace,
rono
Hi Joe,
I purposely omitted the age descriptor because we’re likely the same age, and I don’t consider that old.
I’m not so much puzzled at your assessment of the fairness of the WSJ as I am about your continuing support for, in your opinion, that flawed institution. Your opinion is yours alone, and you are welcome to it. I would never challenge your prerogative to form such a judgment. You have earned that respect.
I do not share your opinion. My judgment is based on a comparison between the two daily newspapers that I have purchased for several decades, the WSJ and the Los Angeles Times. So it is an opinion based only on limited anecdotal data.
Over these many years, when contrasting reportage from these two sources, I find the WSJ coverage to be more accurate, more researched in depth, and more honestly reported. The editorial policies of these two news agencies are very disparate, but that is not the issue. The WSJ is much better at not allowing their editorial bias to seep into either their news sections or their opinion letter section. Admittedly, this is merely an opinion, but it is my opinion.
I am equally puzzled by those MFO members who display utter distain, even contempt, for the US form of Capitalism. Sure it has warts. But if you so dislike the warts, why support the institution? If you do not approve of the way Wal-Mart treats its employees, simply do not shop there. But if you are a MFO participant, and have constructed a diverse portfolio, it is almost a certainty that you are a partial owner of Wal-Mart. So if you are not pro-Capitalism, you are supporting the entity that you profess to abhor.
This makes little sense to me. For those who find the WSJ or Capitalism troublesome, the solution is simplicity itself. Just follow Occam’s Razor; The simplest approach is likely the most successful and appropriate. Just walk away and don’t participate. Why feed the evil serpents?
Because that does not happen, I suspect much of the outrage is either bogus or very mild in intensity or fury, especially when compared to the verbiage generated.
Keep the posts coming.
Stay well.
Pretty sure that's what I said, up above, a couple of days ago. In non-engineering jargon, so you may have missed it.
Hi Joe,
Indeed you made a similar observation two days ago. We agree completely.
I made the same observation in my original posting four days ago. To quote my own submittal:
"Chaos Theory, based on the butterfly effect discovered by Edward Lorenez and popularized by James Gleick in his 1987 book “Chaos, Making a New Science”, essentially concluded that even weather changes (much less climate change) can not be reliably forecasted because of extreme sensitivity to initial condition inputs and multiple solutions prompted by nonlinear governing equations with uncertain and unknowable feedback loops."
Since I credited Gleick's book, I take no ownership of that assessment. I'm sure neither of us discovered that concept.
If you are interested in nonlinear systems or Chaos, I recommend The Great Courses lecture series "Chaos" developed by Professor Steven Strogatz. This DVD series was produced several years ago, but it is still current. I own a copy.
You need not couch our interchange in non-engineering terms. I have several advanced engineering degrees and practiced its discipline for four decades. It was always prudent engineering practice to stay well away from the nonlinear portion of a material's stress-strain curve.
Joe, stay healthy and stay linear.
I completely agree that the news reporting in the WSJ, even under Rupert, is of a very high standard, usually well researched, fair, and honest. We have subscribed to the WSJ for over 30 years because San Francisco evidently can no longer support a decent newspaper.
I have often commented on the fact that it is not uncommon to find a factual and balanced news report on the WSJ first page, accompanied by a politically mandated diatribe in the editorial section which would seem to suggest that the editorial staff doesn't spend much time reading their own newspaper.
With respect to your commentary regarding capitalism, it seems to me that you confuse contempt for the current version of US capitalism with desire for a reasonably well-regulated version, a difference which also eludes the editorial pages of the WSJ.
Regards-
And yes, am quite familiar with The Great Courses lecture series, and have obtained several.
Others are free to think whatever they wish and to display their ignorance if they so choose.