SkepticLance

bascule Safe drinking water has nothing at all to do with global warming or cooling. It is determined by the way we use resources. We have the technology to provide safe drinking water, and safe sanitation, to every man, woman and child on the planet. It is denied so many because of corrupt politicians, and economic policy mismanaged. Do you disagree with my statement? Would you rather live during a new glaciation period, rather than the current warmer times? After all, that is what the original reference was about. It has nothing to do with my personal bias, or yours.

Ulna If you are talking of long term genetic changes in Homo sapiens, such as those which evolution conferred on the mammals in past eras, I think Granpa's comment is pertinent. Our future evolution will be primarily determined by whatever genetic changes we decide to apply, using advanced genetic engineering techniques.

The mayans got it wrong. The LHC fires up in July. That's the end of the world. I know, because the lady who reads my tea leaves told me so.

If you are like me and live near the sea, the lag is even greater. That is because the sea conserves heat as it approaches winter, and takes longer to heat as summer approaches. Since the warmth of the sea affects the warmth of the land that is adjacent, the thermal lag of the sea slows the warming and cooling of the land. For me, today is the longest day. The sea temperature is only 18 C. Within 2 to 3 months it will reach 21 C. When we hit our shortest day, the sea temperature will be only 17 C, and will chill off to about 14 C over the following 2 to 3 months before it begins to warm again. This effect of slow warming and cooling of the sea, and its effect on the nearby land, makes my home more equable than inland regions. We get much reduced temperature extremes in the local atmosphere.

iNow said "I must admit, though, I did get a chuckle out of the fact that you would open a post suggesting "boon" when much of this is speculation based on models." You may note, in my first post, I said "If this is correct ..." I am not asserting it is correct or otherwise. Just that it is an interesting idea. If correct, do you agree it is a boon? I have suggested in other threads that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have increased in the years prior to the 20th Century by amounts too small to be likely to change climate very much. Current CO2 increase runs at about 2 ppm per year, while 30 years ago it was 1 ppm per year. From 1800 AD to 1900, CO2 increased from 280 ppm to 300 ppm. That is : 0.2 ppm per year. If the piece I referenced is correct, it must involve climatic effects that are rather small.

I would prefer if we kept to the theme of my first post. What do people think of the idea that global warming so far may be a boon? Preventing a rather unpleasant cold spell and new wave of glaciation? Accepting that we need to stop the other extreme also.

Reaper You may have read the whole article, which is good. You do not seem to have read my first paragraph, though. I would ask you, please, not to make unwarranted inferences, such as suggesting I have not taken note of current rapid changes. The idea of the Gulf Stream shutting down is still theoretical. Scientists thought they saw the first signs, but that finding has now been overturned.

Let me first say that this is not a justification for recent anthropogenic warming. The last 30 years is a bit too much and we should begin remedial measures. However, the reference below is interesting. http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm It suggests that the world would be entering a new glaciation period, with glaciers advancing, and the whole world cooling, if it were not for early anthropogenic global warming. If this is correct, I am glad it happened. I would much rather live in our current relatively balmy conditions than in a new deep freeze.

Mokele is correct. The old pile of garbage about 'a rose by any other name ...' is just an old load of cobblers. Names do matter. And that poor kid has been condemned to a childhood of cruelty.

iNow I agree totally.

To iNow The name is not a problem. The man titled Christ was born with the name Yeshua ben Yosef. His first name translates into English as Joshua. If there is an objection to naming a child with the same name, the objection should be against the good old name of Josh. It is quite strange how these things happen. Some of the early gospels were written in ancient Greek, which was the language of the literati at the time. Yeshua in Greek became Iesos. This was translated into English as Jesus. Thus names get distorted.

The father is a nutter! He should not be allowed to keep his unfortunately named son. Hopefully the poor kid will be smart enough to change his name by deed poll as soon as he is legally entitled. In the mean time, a nickname should work. Something like Tom, Dick or Harry.

Who says you cannot be creative and objective at the same time? Those qualities are not mutually exclusive. And the whole of science depends on it.

A query If something does not exist without an observer, how can it create outcomes that are observable later, if those outcomes are created while not being observed? For example : If a terrorist plants a bomb with a time fuse and walks off, that bomb is not being observed. Yet the terrorist can wander in later and observe the devastation. The action occurred while not being observed. This is a crude example, but the principle also operates on a quantum level. Quantum phenomena operate without being observed and the results are later seen. Without an observer, by the speculation above, how can this happen?

Like most of the others here, I disagree with Culvers. Warming over the past 30 years correlates very closely with CO2 rise, and there is no other possible factor that shows any similar correlation. While swansont is fond of saying that correlation does not equal causation, it is still a very strong hint that there is a causative factor involved, and if no other factor can be found, the correlating factor is probably the one. So the world is warming, and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the cause. I hope my stance on being sceptical of some of the details of warming can be treated with a bit more open mindedness, and less automatic opposition. We do need to be sceptical, until evidence is clear cut.

Mokele This has been a long, protracted issue. I have given many reasons for scepticism, including past errors such as Arctic ice predictions, current information lack, such as the detailed impact of cloud formation, unknowns such as oceanic currents and so on. I really do not want to repeat it all again.

swansont It is all a matter of interpretation. You look at things one way, and I the other. However, I have not challenged the basic science, which is something my debate opponents seem to keep overlooking. I am simply saying that GCM's are not as accurate or reliable as some seem to think. Dr. Smith says the same thing. Models predicting global cooling would be a surprise. They would have to have very good reason to do so, since the 30 year trend is warming. It would take a bit to convince me that such a model is valid, since it flies in the face of recent experience. Localised cooling may be a bit different. You said "But since that is pure conjecture, you can't really argue that, now can you?" Of course it is conjecture. That is why I used the words 'my interpretation'. However, it makes sense. To call it "a hell of a qualifier to find on page 797" implies surprise. Dr. Smith expressed surprise that the qualifier was 'hidden' so far into the report, and there has to be a reason for this. On selective quoting. I was not going to type out the entire interview - both because of copyright and because of the time required. Thus I had to be selective. I left out what was not relevent to the point. Since I was not arguing against the fact of warming, there was no need to include something affirming the fact of warming. The message from Dr. Smith was not to overhype models. Treat them with healthy scepticism, which is something I have done consistently.

swansont You should know by now that I am not a denier, or someone who predicts cooling. The most likely future, at least for the next 50 to 100 years, involves warming. It is the degree of warming that is moot. Neither is Dr. Smith a denier. He is a good scientist involved in GCM's, who know their limitations and is not afraid to discuss those limitations. This is what makes him unusual. It appears, from his statements, that most modellers overhype their models and fail to admit to the limitations. As far as the IPCC qualifier is concerned, my interpretation of Dr. Smith's comments is that the IPCC are aware of the fact that their range of models is inadequate, and the true result might be quite different to that which they are publishing. To cover their asses, they print a qualifier in a place where virtually no-one will read it. We could argue that this tactic is intellectually dishonest.

Mr Skeptic Let me rephrase. Novel scientific ideas need novel predictions. A new idea which simply made predictions we already knew were correct would not be of much use. The test comes when the new idea makes new predictions that we do NOT already know to be correct. Established ideas are different.

There is, of course, no simple answer to the question. Carl Popper made a valuable contribution with his principle of falsification. However, that is not everything. My own view is that science is simply too big and complex. However, we can try to tease out some of the core principles. Carl Sagan stated that the core of science is prediction. By this, of course, he meant the predictive test, which ties in with falsification. Scientific ideas have to be tested, and this is done by using them to make a novel prediction which can be, and is, tested. Francis Bacon was the father of modern science. Not the only one, of course, since Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke were working on the same thing at the same time. However, Bacon wrote down the principles in an organised fashion, which no one else at the time managed to do. His main contribution was the need for empiricism. This means that scientific knowledge is advanced by testing that is based on novel observation or experiment - real world as opposed to 'back of the envelope' or mental. The original was Aristotle. However, he believed firmly in logic as the road to knowledge, and taught that all new knowledge should come from the logical process. As long as we begin with a solid premise, and proceed via correct logical steps, we get to a correct conclusion. That is, of course, a total load of cobblers! That belief probably held back human progress enormously. Only since Bacon put empirical testing, instead of logic, at the forefront did science get under way properly. If we combine empiricism, predictive testing, and falsification, we are getting close to the core of science.

Mokele I do not suggest throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Models have their value, as I have said previously. However, it is scientifically correct to realise that they are works in progress, far from perfected, and it is healthy to maintain a level of scepticism about their accuracy. A couple of other quotes from Dr. Lenny Smith. " The climate community presents a united front......The downside is that if someone goes too far in interpreting model results, they don't always face proper scrutiny" About the IPCC reports, he says : "You have to read the qualifiers carefully, though. In the most recent report, for instance, there is an explicit acknowledgement that the range of simulations in today's models is too narrow. That is, future warming could be greater or less than what is suggested by the diversity between models in the report. It is good that the qualifier is there, but it is a hell of a qualifier to find on page 797"

Mokele And modern GCM's running in 2003 underestimated Arctic ice melt by a factor of 100%. The reason for that underestimate was an ocean current bringing warmer water north, that had not been detected previously. It is these 'unknown unknowns' that are most likely to screw up GCM's. Slow moving ocean currents are very difficult to detect, let alone measure. Deep ocean currents are very poorly understood, and have a big impact on global climate. Cloud formation is critical to climate modelling, and is very poorly understood. The impact of variabilities in this factor will be to create unpredicted outcomes. As time passes, of course, GCM's will get better. As of right now, they have definite limitations.

iNow Thank you for the apology. Most gracious. The topic of how accurate or reliable GCM's might be is, in fact, not possible to quantify (yet), and is subject to opinion. As a result, quoting the opinion of an expert is, in my own very humble opinion, acceptable. The use of words like 'scripture' is purely descriptive. I feel I can use words for that purpose, even if no-one has yet used them. Call it artistic or writer's license. You used the phrase : "but they're incredibly powerful and accurate", to describe GCM's. That was over the top, and I used another over the top phrase to counter it. I do not know, and neither do you, how accurate or inaccurate GCM's as done today actually are. However, the indications I have posted here and elsewhere suggest some real shortcomings, and these need to be pointed out. As far as I am concerned, GCM's are a tool only, and a work in progress. As such, they have value, but we must continue to question them in order to make sure they are improved. No doubt they will improve with time, and maybe in a few decades we will be able to use them with the confidence we currently apply to such things as orbital models in astronomy.

iNow says he is in agreement with my statement that GCM's are incomplete, imperfect, and open to criticism. That is fine by me. With that agreement, I have no more argument with him on this topic. Let's move on.

To sayonara You are quite right. My statement a few posts back was careless, and I should have set a few more conditions. If we consider alien civilisations as possible colonisers of the galaxy, there are certain criteria that must be met. I stated three of them in my earlier post this thread. 1. Able to survive. 2. Able to grow. 3. Happened in the past 100 million years. What I failed to mention in that post was the requisite psychological makeup of our hypothetical alien. To colonise the entire galaxy, they must want to colonise the entire galaxy, and develop the technological means. Call it aggressive expansionist tendency, if you like. My feeling, expressed in the earlier thread, is that any single hypothetical alien species may not meet all the criteria. However, if the number of alien species is large, there will be at least one that does. If the number is small, then it is possible that none will meet the needed characteristics. So you are correct, and you caught me in an error. My views are still the same, but I was careless in my communication.