quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Leo, I'm cool. But yes - politics! Is there any hope with the value system used by the majority of our politicians? I once watched a wildlife program in which two gazelles were locked horns fighting over a piece of ground. They were so engrossed in their struggle they failed to notice they had become surrounded by a family of Cheetahs!! Are we any wiser do you think? I don't think so. How do you explain to a cancerous tumour that its continued rapid growth will ultimately kill it?

I don't know about politicians. But speaking of the gazelles, I don't think they were fighting over a piece of ground. More likely, they were males fighting for the dominant position in a herd, and for the females that come with it. Which shows, I suppose, that humans are not alone in sometimes finding sex and power more important than life.

Leo

I just found this on the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6926597.stm

It essentially says that 50% of measured warming is caused by pollution over asia. Not from models but from measurements. Nothing to do with CO2.

How's that fit with the AGW predictions of models?

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
I just found this on the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6926597.stm

It essentially says that 50% of measured warming is caused by pollution over asia. Not from models but from measurements. Nothing to do with CO2.

How's that fit with the AGW predictions of models?

It fits with the general muddying of the waters all round. A Horizon programme not so long ago suggested that global dimming was preventing runaway warming and the studied the atmosphere over the Northern and Southern Maldives to show the effect. So who is right and who is wrong? If the survival of your genes is on the line and you really care about it who you going to back? What is your attitude to risk and risk management?

My new found mate Bjorn Lomborg, has a nice line in blowing away the "Litany" of false or incompetant reporting using statistical analyses in his Skeptical Environmentalist book. So long as you don't prejudge with "How to Lie with Statistics" its very interesting. Give it go !!

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Leo, I'm cool. But yes - politics! Is there any hope with the value system used by the majority of our politicians? I once watched a wildlife program in which two gazelles were locked horns fighting over a piece of ground. They were so engrossed in their struggle they failed to notice they had become surrounded by a family of Cheetahs!! Are we any wiser do you think? I don't think so. How do you explain to a cancerous tumour that its continued rapid growth will ultimately kill it?

I don't know about politicians. But speaking of the gazelles, I don't think they were fighting over a piece of ground. More likely, they were males fighting for the dominant position in a herd, and for the females that come with it. Which shows, I suppose, that humans are not alone in sometimes finding sex and power more important than life.

Leo

A piece of ground containing loads of sexy females? What about the cancer analogy? Everybody seems to duck that one! Why do we need to go flat out for growth? Where's it leading, other than to make the elite very wealthy (but not rich)!!

Seskinreay

quote:

So who is right and who is wrong? If the survival of your genes is on the line and you really care about it who you going to back? What is your attitude to risk and risk management?

I'm trying to find out who is right and who is wrong so we agree on that one.

Try starting your second question with "When I believe" then I'll have an answer if the first question will have been answered with "AGW proponents".

Concerning my attitude to Risk and risk management then I look at

What's my exposure to the risk and potential impact on me and my objectives?
What's the likelyhood of exposure?
What can be done to mitigate the risk?
What's the cost of various mitigation scenarios and how does that balance with my other objectives?
Then make a decision but prepare to recycle as more information may become available.

Does this differ from yours?

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
A piece of ground containing loads of sexy females? What about the cancer analogy? Everybody seems to duck that one! Why do we need to go flat out for growth? Where's it leading, other than to make the elite very wealthy (but not rich)!!

Analogies are not fact. This kind of reasoning, employed by you and many other AGW supporters, is just a product of the current political situation and the current state of science (which is always changing as well). It doesn't reflect the real state of things just by the virtue of sounding right and pursuing the right environmentalist goals--unless you believe that truth is subjective. Figuratively speaking, the Sun doesn't care whatsoever about what we think at this point in time. I also want to live in a clean environment, and there are things worse than CO2 in that respect. If CO2 is not responsible for the global warming (as it appears not to), then we may end up squandering our limited resources in a wrong direction.

Leo

Son of Mulder.


Quote.
I just found this on the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6926597.stm

It essentially says that 50% of measured warming is caused by pollution over asia. Not from models but from measurements. Nothing to do with CO2.

How's that fit with the AGW predictions of models?
EOQ.

I know the beeb's credibility has taken a plunge recently, but they are probably all correct. Only highlighting different atmospheric events!

There are many scenarios that involve aerosol, or/and particulate, activity with insolation and they mostly show different outcomes. The physics of the event is too complex to be included with a "radiation budget" model and needs to be run as a subroutine for each particular event, failure to do this will only result in an untrustworthy model output.

These recent measurements that seem to contradict many other measurements that were taken, only highlight the need for more a complex modelling that can add greater definition to the chaos.

Regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

These recent measurements that seem to contradict many other measurements that were taken, only highlight the need for more a complex modelling that can add greater definition to the chaos.

When you look at the error bars against each forcing agent you find a very large negative error bar for aerosols. If aerosols were to turn out not to be negative but positive then it makes a massive dent in the component of heating from CO2 - unless there is some other (unknown) negative forcing or feedback. My money is on the models being too grossly inadequate for the 95% certainty assigned by IPCC, whatever the reality of aerosols.

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
A piece of ground containing loads of sexy females? What about the cancer analogy? Everybody seems to duck that one! Why do we need to go flat out for growth? Where's it leading, other than to make the elite very wealthy (but not rich)!!

Analogies are not fact. This kind of reasoning, employed by you and many other AGW supporters, is just a product of the current political situation and the current state of science (which is always changing as well). It doesn't reflect the real state of things just by the virtue of sounding right and pursuing the right environmentalist goals--unless you believe that truth is subjective. Figuratively speaking, the Sun doesn't care whatsoever about what we think at this point in time. I also want to live in a clean environment, and there are things worse than CO2 in that respect. If CO2 is not responsible for the global warming (as it appears not to), then we may end up squandering our limited resources in a wrong direction.

Leo

Leo, I'm not an AGW supporter but lean toward its likelyhood based on the exchanges on this website between the two camps, what I've read for myself and what I see with my own eyes.

I'm very much convinced of mans "cancer" like behaviour in respect of his disregard for the welfare of his host environment.

"Cancer is a disease characterized by a population that grows without respect to normal limits"

As far as I am aware we are the only species able to stretch our boundaries (Lovelock).

A strength overdone becomes a weakness.

I am also reading Lomborg because I am interested in the REAL state of the environment and I have to say that what I have read so far is encouraging. That is not to say there is room for complacency, there is an enormous amount of work and investment required to get us out of a bad situation. Lomborg asserts things are getting better but not necessarily good. Anybody else read the man? What do you think?

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Seskinreay

quote:

So who is right and who is wrong? If the survival of your genes is on the line and you really care about it who you going to back? What is your attitude to risk and risk management?

I'm trying to find out who is right and who is wrong so we agree on that one.

Try starting your second question with "When I believe" then I'll have an answer if the first question will have been answered with "AGW proponents".

Concerning my attitude to Risk and risk management then I look at

What's my exposure to the risk and potential impact on me and my objectives?
What's the likelyhood of exposure?
What can be done to mitigate the risk?
What's the cost of various mitigation scenarios and how does that balance with my other objectives?
Then make a decision but prepare to recycle as more information may become available.

Does this differ from yours?

No difference other than my risk management strategy doesn't include waiting until "When I believe". Which is partly why I am making this (futile) attempt to discuss the potential hazards facing us. Some of which I believe are very real and others reasonably strong possibilities.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Suricat

quote:

These recent measurements that seem to contradict many other measurements that were taken, only highlight the need for more a complex modelling that can add greater definition to the chaos.

When you look at the error bars against each forcing agent you find a very large negative error bar for aerosols. If aerosols were to turn out not to be negative but positive then it makes a massive dent in the component of heating from CO2 - unless there is some other (unknown) negative forcing or feedback. My money is on the models being too grossly inadequate for the 95% certainty assigned by IPCC, whatever the reality of aerosols.

How was the massive mean temperature rise (3 degs C I think it was) across the USA post 9/11 explained if it were not for the total lack of aircraft contrails?

Son of Mulder.

Quote.
When you look at the error bars against each forcing agent you find a very large negative error bar for aerosols. If aerosols were to turn out not to be negative but positive then it makes a massive dent in the component of heating from CO2 - unless there is some other (unknown) negative forcing or feedback. My money is on the models being too grossly inadequate for the 95% certainty assigned by IPCC, whatever the reality of aerosols.
EOQ.


Thanks for quoting my 'a' dyslexia in conjunction with 'more'.

I don't quite know how these computer models are put together, but I've half a mind to download and dissect some of them (though I don't know where I'll find the time for this). Just to see if they've used 'real physics' in each grid square, or a 'random number' (or educated guess [same thing almost] ) along the "error bar" for the interplay of each of the "forcing" agents. I'd expect the full "feedbacks" physics to be there though.

One thing is sure about aerosols. They're all positive forcing agents on IR escape and negative forcing agents on solar insolation (unless ground albedo would've 'reflected' as that would make them positive, but less positive than the equivalent ground insolation). Though to what total degree depends on the locality and scenario.

I know we've introduced aerosols into this thread when the subject is about CO2, but if one investigates obvious disparities in a model it can often unveil other model inadequacies (the CO2 question).



PS.
Seskinreay.

I had my cancer cut out nearly two years ago. I'm not affected by your dramatic analogies, but I understand the situation of some others and these boards are read by many individuals that may well be unable to parallel my indifference. Could you please find analogies that are more appropriate for the subject at hand.

Respectfully, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

PS.
Seskinreay.

I had my cancer cut out nearly two years ago. I'm not affected by your dramatic analogies, but I understand the situation of some others and these boards are read by many individuals that may well be unable to parallel my indifference. Could you please find analogies that are more appropriate for the subject at hand.

Respectfully, suricat.

Respectfully Suricat, I am not trying to be disrespectful to anybody who is suffering or has suffered from this terrible disease. I think the vast majority of people will understand that. Apologises to you if you are upset by it. The analogy still stands however unless somebody can explain rationally why it doesn't fit.

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
How was the massive mean temperature rise (3 degs C I think it was) across the USA post 9/11 explained if it were not for the total lack of aircraft contrails?

Far be it for me to answer for the AGW-ists, but might this not have been purely and simply natural variations?

quote:

Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
How was the massive mean temperature rise (3 degs C I think it was) across the USA post 9/11 explained if it were not for the total lack of aircraft contrails?

Far be it for me to answer for the AGW-ists, but might this not have been purely and simply natural variations?

JL, no it was a very very un-natural variation as I recall it. 3 degs is apparently massive for mean temp variation. It was the opening shock horror gambit of the programme so I doubt the guy making the claim was trying to make himself look foolish !!

They went on to examine the temperature differences between the north and sout of the Maldives and the part that is most polluted with "smoke" was cooler.

The message I took away was the global dimming was only thing preventing run away warming. Therefore your flights to New York are OK apparently !!

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
The message I took away was the global dimming was only thing preventing run away warming. Therefore your flights to New York are OK apparently !!

Indeed, they should pay me to go

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
I just found this on the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6926597.stm

It essentially says that 50% of measured warming is caused by pollution over asia. Not from models but from measurements. Nothing to do with CO2.

How's that fit with the AGW predictions of models?

SoM, just read about the Asian Brown Cloud in the Times. The headline reads "Giant toxic cloud may bring flood and drought to 2,000,000,000 people".

It is heating the "local" area (ie Asia !) and is created by "enormous plumes of smoke from factories, power plants, and wood or dung fires that stretch across the Indian subcontinent and into South-East Asia".

If this is correct I guess its ALW (Anthropological Local Warming) ?

No matter whether its CO2 or great plumes of dung smoke its still man made - no? And something needs to be done about it - yes?