"State of Fear" Crichton's new book about Global Warming (spoilers)

Julius wrote:
I guess it never occurred to you that this planet is in a constant
state of flux on a level that dwarfs mankind's perception. So the ice
caps melt? OK, someday the earth cools again and they reform to their
previous state.

Here's three words of wisdom for you .... Adapt ... improvise ...
overcome.

It's far more constructive and purposeful than whining about things you
can't control.

Quite interesting we have no idea of the range of stable conditions
which can exist. We have only a tentative idea of the change in the
"average" which causes or ends and ice age.

Mainly the problem is we really don't know that much about the
weather. Our weather guys (like the tool guy) claim great accuracy.
But collect seven day forecasts for seven days and see how the
prediction for tomorrow is little more than "just like today" which is
right 80% of the time because weather tends to remain constant for
five day periods.

We don't have a fraction of the information needed to predict long
term trends. But the few pieces we have are so blown out of proportion
that they appear to be dominant. We have no idea what is dominant if
anything.

We do know life has survived for 4 billion years without any help
from intelligence. We know every "dominant" criteria today has been
greatly exceeded, higher or lower, in the past.

In fact we suffer from the same issue as sci.astro.seti of having
only one data point, that point being our current condition without
the least knowledge of how they work together if they do or if any of
them are critical or dominant or even important. We have no idea if
CO2 matters in the least. We know for a fact water vapor is the most
important "gas" regulating temperatures is a complex, interactive and
poorly understood manner -- poorly understood in a global sense for
certain and often in a local sense.

We have a good indication Greece became markedly more arid around
1200 BC and we note civilization increased afterwards. Post hoc ergo
propter hoc is false but early Greek civilization did not collapse
because of it.

Climate change for human causes is a scam, a con game, a stupid
greenie religion.

--
If it is foolish to fight duels for personal honor
why is it a wise to fight wars for national honor?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3333

"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
om...
[.....]
Climate change for human causes is a scam, a con game, a stupid
greenie religion.

How do you figure that ?

Just because we don't understand the weather does not mean that we are not
responsible for some of its changes...

Seems that accepting that climate can change because of humans undergoes the
same phases that many scientific discoveries go through :

First, people don't think it is true
then, they don't think it is important
and finally they credit the wrong person.

I think that you are still in the first phase, many other people are in the
second phase, but let me tell you that we will have done an awefull lot of
damage to our environment (not to mention the direct costs involved) once we
are in the third phase, and it does not matter any more who was right.

Rob Dekker wrote:
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
om...
[.....]

Climate change for human causes is a scam, a con game, a stupid
greenie religion.

How do you figure that ?

Just because we don't understand the weather does not mean that we are not
responsible for some of its changes...

That is saying every wild assertion is true until a negative is
proven. That is nonsense. Those making the assertion must establish it
as a fact by presentation of physical evidence. That must pass
rigorous application of the criteria of the scientific method. And in
science one exception means the theory is bull.

Seems that accepting that climate can change because of humans undergoes the
same phases that many scientific discoveries go through :

First, people don't think it is true
then, they don't think it is important
and finally they credit the wrong person.

I think that you are still in the first phase, many other people are in the
second phase, but let me tell you that we will have done an awefull lot of
damage to our environment (not to mention the direct costs involved) once we
are in the third phase, and it does not matter any more who was right.

When you believers present physical evidence in support of your
position many people including myself will critically examine it.

Here there are two possibilities.

The first is you have knowledge of such evidence, you will present it
and defend it. That will lead to an interesting exchange.

The second is you know nothing but what you have read, you are unable
to present and defend it and you are only reciting what you have
chosen to believe. That means you can only honestly saying anything on
the subject by attributing it to the person from whom you got it as
you know nothing yourself. That will be a very boring exchange of
acrimony.

--
If it is foolish to fight duels for personal honor
why is it a wise to fight wars for national honor?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3333

CeeBee wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote in sci.astro.seti:

Climate change for human causes is a scam, a con game, a stupid
greenie religion.

It's generally accepted as being a scam, a con game, and a stupid
greenie religion in some political religions, and the cause of all evil
in some greenie religions.
As religions mostly appeal to parrots, both religions are parroted
widely and eagerly.

This got crossposted here because of the single data point problem
which also faces SETI.

Climate change due to human activity is generally accepted as being a
reality by the vast majority of the scientific community, regardless of
their political affiliations, although there's no agreement nor
sufficient knowlegde about the extent, the danger, and the effects.

Scientists are not immune to political fads. The very fact that the
"vast majority" agree when real scientists do not offer public
opinions on subjects outside their professional expertise shows it is
political. The vast majority of biologists do not have independent
opinions on the big bang they only know the common opinion in
astrophysics. Any suggestion of any vast majority can only be of what
the professional community in that field holds. It cannot be a
personal knowledge statement.

In fact the only opinions worth reviewing are those of people
specializing in predictive global climatology. The field sort of
exists. Getting back to the single data point issue, so far it has had
no successes as it is too new, seriously barely ten years old.

It lacks elementary information in matters which are currently
consider crucial. CO2 is considered crucial. But fully one third of
the carbon cycle is unknown; completely unaccounted for by anyone. I
myself do not consider it reasonable to identify human activity as the
cause of a few parts per thousand increase in atmospheric CO2 when 1/3
of the carbon cycle is unknown. I expect a bit more.

--
You go to war with what you have only if you have to go to war.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3317

"Matt Giwer" wrote in message om...
[....]
I myself do not consider it reasonable to identify human activity as the
cause of a few parts per thousand increase in atmospheric CO2 when 1/3
of the carbon cycle is unknown. I expect a bit more.


You would probably not be convinced that we have any influence on the climate
even if Florida (where you live..) would be hit harder and harder by stronger and
stronger tornado's.

I extract from your statement that you DO believe that CO2 levels in the atmosphere went up.
That's at least something.
Yes. They went up from 275ppm to 375ppm in a 50 year time period.

I'm not sure if you attribute this increase of CO2 to human causes.
Maybe some facts would help ? I'll keep it simple :

Over the past 5 million years, we know from ice-core data that CO2 levels in the atmosphere varied.
From 200ppm during the ice-ages to about 275ppm in the warm periods.
In 1950 it still was about 275ppm.
Now, it is 375ppm. And going up. We have no record of it ever being so high (at least not for a very long time in the past).

The increase is (in mass) a bit more than the total mass of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by us buring fossil fuel since 1950.
The remainder (of excess CO2) can be explained by the destruction of forests around the world (less CO2 absorbed by forests).
So the 100ppm is what we put out into the atmosphere.
It seems that it is still where we put it. It was not magically absorbed by some other process on the planet...

If you want, I can come up with all the references and to these numbers, but I'm not sure if that helps at all, since you seem to be
convinced that all this is still a belief system.

For the same reason, I don't want to go for the next step (that there is a strong correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and the
global temperature), unless you want me to.

I recommend that you read the September edition of National Geographic. The entire article edition is devoted to global warming. If
you want to, you can ignore the stories of the ecological damage that the current 1 degree increase in temperature already caused,
and skip the global devestation that are predicted by even the most conservative models of warming available. You can also skip the
section of the risks of global warming possibly causing harsh cold winters in Northern Europe, because such local effects are indeed
very hard to predict at this point. Just read the section that deals with CO2 and temperature increases.

Rob

CeeBee wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote in sci.astro.seti:

Scientists are not immune to political fads. The very fact that the
"vast majority" agree when real scientists do not offer public
opinions on subjects outside their professional expertise shows it is
political.

The vast majority of biologists do not have independent
opinions on the big bang they only know the common opinion in
astrophysics. Any suggestion of any vast majority can only be of what
the professional community in that field holds. It cannot be a
personal knowledge statement.

Just for the record: there is no distinction between "scientists" and
"real scientists". They are the same.

For the record of the 104 scientists who signed the first UN global
warming declaration 102 of them were political scientists. I don't
know if the ratio has changed since then.

Also I do question the credentials of any scientist who gives
authoritative opinions in fields other than his own. That is
unprofessional.

If I talk about the Big Bang and about the vast majority of scientists
supporting this theory, I'm not talking about medical scientists.
If I talk about global climate change and the vast majority of scientists
supporting the theory that there's a significant effect from human
activity on it, I'm not talking about historians, sociologists or
dentists.

If you are talking about what you claim then you are talking about a
bare handful of climatologists who have been in the business of making
predictions for barely ten years. Note that is not long enough to have
any track record.

In fact the only opinions worth reviewing are those of people
specializing in predictive global climatology. The field sort of
exists. Getting back to the single data point issue, so far it has had
no successes as it is too new, seriously barely ten years old.

It lacks elementary information in matters which are currently
consider crucial. CO2 is considered crucial. But fully one third of
the carbon cycle is unknown; completely unaccounted for by anyone. I
myself do not consider it reasonable to identify human activity as the
cause of a few parts per thousand increase in atmospheric CO2 when 1/3
of the carbon cycle is unknown. I expect a bit more.

Contrary to your beliefs data about the effect on climate and weather due
to contribution from a variety of human activities, from emissions like
greenhouse gases and ozon depleting gases to various activities like
deforestation, are _neither_ speculation, _nor_ unknown, unidentified, or
insignificant.

Then of course you will direct my attention to an explanation of 100%
of the carbon cycle. I see no reason to blithely ignore the completely
unknown 1/3.

I point out the majority of the temperature increase in the last
century was in the first half. Was CO2 higher between 1900 and 1950
than between 1950 and 2000? If not, please explain.

Why and how did CO2 vanish from the atmosphere during the Ice Ages?
Why and how did it decrease during the little ice age a few centuries
ago?

But if there has not been a one to one corelation between CO2 and
temperature before now, why now?

Since when has it been legitimate to directly relate heat and
temperature without controlling every other variable?

The data exist, and are established; information is neither lacking nor
inconclusive. The quantity of data is growing each day.
The problem is not that the data are not available, but what _precise_
effects this human contribution on climate will have over the time coming.

The mere assertion of existence does not indicate existence.

But let me ask you, are you in climatology? Have you personally
reviewed the data and confirmed it valid? Have you personally or have
your collegues actually utilized this data in making these predictions?

If your answers are yes, can you explain why most of the temperature
increase was in the first half of the last century? If CO2 is so
important, it must have vanished during the real ice ages and
drastically decreased during the little ice age a few centuries ago.

But if those events are to be explained by handwaving other more
important factors why are those factors not working today?

What do you make of the recent paper reanalyzing the CO2 data of the
19th and early 20th century and finding the single paper which made
the claim of an increase was flawed in that the conclusion is caused
by the selected and rejected measurements?

Again: not the absence of the facts is the problem, but the use or neglect
of these facts to support political religions.
However I guess neither you nor those "greenies" you so abhor are very
interested in changing or adapting religions. Religion and facts aren't
particularly going along well together.

I look at the "we're running out of oil" crowd and the "we're
melting" crowd and it appears the former is ahead so we will run out
of oil before we melt. So you folks can stop worrying.

If we take the CO2 increase over time seriously, dropping back to
1900 level burning will get CO2 level back down by 2100.

The only proposal taken seriously in public is trading burning rights
from developing countries for hard currency resulting in no decrease
in emmissions.

As Chricton put it, if in 1900 the huge population increase had been
known there would have been urgent horse breeding and manure handling
programs started.

Instead there was only Malthusian gloom and doom. You do remember the
food riots in India in the 1970s don't you?

Predictions of future disaster have always been with us. And always
it has been, this time it WILL happen. And always the predictions have
failed and the real problems were always a surprise.

--
Nazism must remain evil to keep communism looking good.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3330

CeeBee wrote:
[...]
to contribution from a variety of human activities, from emissions like
greenhouse gases and ozon depleting gases to various activities like
deforestation, are _neither_ speculation, _nor_ unknown, unidentified, or
insignificant.

The data exist, and are established; information is neither lacking nor
inconclusive. The quantity of data is growing each day.
[...]

The ozone example is very clear and significant. That was one disaster
in the making that was averted by simply stopping the release of CFCs by
human activity.

(No or reduced atmospheric ozone: animals get skin cancer and plants
don't grow well...)


The timescale for recovering the ozone protection was fleetingly brief
compared to recovery from an over-abundance of greenhouse gasses.

Perhaps this is the effect that so far has always killed off any rapidly
advancing civilisations.


This is one example where the politicians may yet kill us all.

Regards,
Martin


--
---------- OS? What's that?!
- Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3

Matt Giwer wrote:
[...]
The last I heard storms occur at the boundaries of temperature and
pressure differences. I fail to see how everything getting warmer or
cooler would affect the temperature difference to a significant degree
considering the difference is in reference to absolute zero.
[...]

Just you try a few ClimatePrediction simulations!


To keep it trivially simple:

Our weather works so well because sea-level temperatures are mostly
between the feezing point of water and the boiling point of water. The
world average temperature is only a few degrees from the water feezing
point. A 1 degree C rise is a huge percentage increase relative to the
water freezing point.

Water is significant for our weather.

The transition from rainforest to desert is worryingly easy.


Take a look at one very small (temperature) effect called El Nino - La
Nina ...

Regards,
Martin

--
---------- OS? What's that?!
- Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3

Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
[...]

The last I heard storms occur at the boundaries of temperature and
pressure differences. I fail to see how everything getting warmer or
cooler would affect the temperature difference to a significant degree
considering the difference is in reference to absolute zero.

[...]

Just you try a few ClimatePrediction simulations!

Pencil and paper or will Japan let me use the supercomputer they
designed to address such problems?

To keep it trivially simple:

Our weather works so well because sea-level temperatures are mostly
between the feezing point of water and the boiling point of water. The
world average temperature is only a few degrees from the water feezing
point. A 1 degree C rise is a huge percentage increase relative to the
water freezing point.

Lets make this real simply. Temperature as a measure of heat content
has to be relative to absolute zero. Water freezes at 273°
(degrees incase your newsreader doesn't do html) Kelvin and boils at
373 degrees which are Centigrade sized degrees. A one degree C at 20C
is 1/293 difference, roughly 1/3 of 1 percent.

Water is significant for our weather.

The transition from rainforest to desert is worryingly easy.

Take a look at one very small (temperature) effect called El Nino - La
Nina ...

Now that you have learned how to estimate the energy difference would
you care to revise your post?

--
Christmas is the one time of year we hear that
Christmas comes only once a year.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3324

Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin 53N 1W wrote:

[...]

Just you try a few ClimatePrediction simulations!

[...]

To keep it trivially simple:

Our weather works so well because sea-level temperatures are mostly
between the feezing point of water and the boiling point of water.
[...]


Lets make this real simply. Temperature as a measure of heat content
has to be relative to absolute zero. Water freezes at 273°
(degrees incase your newsreader doesn't do html) Kelvin and boils at 373
degrees which are Centigrade sized degrees. A one degree C at 20C is
1/293 difference, roughly 1/3 of 1 percent.

1: Your reference point is wrong. Hint: consider 'method of mixtures'.

2: You also ignore the huge Latent Heat values involved in changing the
states of water.


Water is significant for our weather.

The transition from rainforest to desert is worryingly easy.

Take a look at one very small (temperature) effect called El Nino - La
Nina ...

Now that you have learned how to estimate the energy difference
would you care to revise your post?

3: You clearly have no concept of how our weather patterns are driven.


Take a look at Venus and compare!

Good luck,
Martin


--
---------- OS? What's that?!
- Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3