1323Views134Replies

Author Options:

Climate Change Recalculated Talk with Saul Griffith Answered


"It is not accurate to say we can still stop climate change," says Saul Griffith, the Bay Area inventor who received a MacArthur "genius" award in 2007. "We are now working to stop worse climate change or much-worse-than-worse climate change."

Griffith has done the research and the math to figure out exactly what it will take for humanity to soften the impact of climate change in the next 25 years, and he lays it out in a dazzling presentation. It is horrifying news. The politics and technologies we have now are not up to the task.

Friday, January 16, 2009
Doors open 7:00pm, talk at 7:30pm lasting ~1.5 hours
Located at Cowell Theatre in Fort Mason Center, San Francisco, CA

http://www.longnow.org/

50 Replies

user
finky555 (author)2009-01-19

Hey Mikey, I like it. Mikey77, you have stood alone against the onslaught of climate change proponents. I agree totally with you, this global warming issue is being pushed for reasons other than to save us from ourselves. Taxes and power come to mind. The THEORY may be correct, but it is still a theory, same as the coming Ice age was back in the day. Fine Fungus found an article that disputes it, fact is we lived through the scare and now we find it was BS. Well here we are in the middle of another scare and saying I want more proof is a bad thing. Gimme a break. I have had it with science claims that theory is fact. It may be close, even very very close, but it is still called a theory as long as there is an unknown. It is NOT fact. Using your hitler analogy Mikey fit perfectly in what you were trying to say. I am tired of hearing global warming, whether it is caused totally by humans, partly by humans or not by humans, I'm tired of the BS. I've seen too many theories change over my life to fall for it now. This global warming concern is a definite red flag but that's it, I am not about to panic change life because of it. Far too many larger polluters are allowed to carry on while Joe public has to curb all waste now. This is not an argument against the need to protect our earth. Just stop trying to BS us with predictions presented as fact. For the record, the exploding brain comment was an insult and completely unnecessary. If you can't win the debate, insult them, that's science for you.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gaiatechnician (author)finky5552009-02-28

Fact and theory. In the physical world, there is no such thing as fact. Every single scientific measurement has a margin of error. and they HAVE to state it. So because there is a margin, something based on numerous measurements gets called a theory. Same as relativity or newtons theorys. YOU are just playing games.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)finky5552009-01-19

> same as the coming Ice age was back in the day
. Please explain. What Ice Age? Back in which day?
.
> Fungus found an article that disputes it
. Apparently you haven't read the replies. Much more than one article has been presented.
.
> and saying I want more proof is a bad thing
. No. That is a good thing. Science is built on asking questions and requiring proof.
. What is bad is ignoring a large body of evidence - whether it agrees with one's position or not.
.
> science claims that theory is fact
. Read the earlier discussion on just what a theory is. Stop reading the popular press - they constantly misuse terms (Global Warming is a terribly inaccurate description) and over-simplify things.
.
> your hitler analogy Mikey fit perfectly
. It may have fit (or may not; that is for others to decide), but it is a very "loaded" analogy. See Godwin's Law.
.
> I'm tired of the BS
. Then quit reading the opinions of those who don't really know and research some of the links given earlier. Don't take my word for it. Don't take kelseymh's word for it. Don't take Kiteman's word for it. We're not experts (although the other two are very knowledgeable). Go straight to the horse's mouth and look at the data yourself. See if their conclusions are logical.
.
> the exploding brain comment was an insult and completely unnecessary
. I can see how it came across that way, but Dr. Kelsey really doesn't seem like the type that would wish harm on others. I took it as a humorous, although poorly worded, expression of frustration.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
mikey77 (author)NachoMahma2009-01-23

> the exploding brain comment was an insult and completely unnecessary
. I can see how it came across that way, but Dr. Kelsey really doesn't seem like the type that would wish harm on others. I took it as a humorous, although poorly worded, expression of frustration.

The idea of my death by explosion, is humorous to you and a few others. I guess that is your version of the: be nice policy.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)mikey772009-01-24

We've been over this! You can just read "Adrian's brain" and I'm sure it'd be much funnier. Shoot, I find that funny.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)mikey772009-01-24

. What is most humorous is your over-reaction. You can either forget about it or let it bother you the rest of your life - your choice, not mine.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
purduecer (author)2009-01-15

You know, you could try a little optimism, instead of just sitting and watching the ever-dimming horizon...anyone? No? Thought not.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)purduecer2009-01-15

. It may sound like Chicken Little's "the sky is falling," but h. sapiens induced climate change could very well be The End Of The World As We Know It.
. But Earth got along just fine before we came along; I'm sure it will get along just as well when we are gone. ;)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
mikey77 (author)NachoMahma2009-01-15

It is not accurate to say that any of you know for sure that climate change is occurring. It is not accurate to say that any of you know for sure that it is caused by humans. Humankind is causing global warming? Where is the scientific evidence? The same people (weather scientists) who cannot tell you what the temperature will be next week to within 10 degrees locally, somehow can tell what the temperature over the whole planet will be in 50 years to within 1 or 2 degrees? I am sorry, but this is scientifically and logically absurd. Scientists have the ability to predict the future 50 years in advance? Show me where they have done it before. I do not think there is anyone alive who can predict what will happen in fifty years. We are not that perceptive. We are not that smart. Around 11,000 years ago there was an ice age. A large part of the planet was covered in ice. It melted. Natural, non-man made global warming. There were no horrible SUVs or despicable corporations or major carbon dioxide pollution from industry that made that happen. The heat from the earth, and the heat from the sun melted all that ice. I have studied the computer models that are used to predict global warming. They are not facts, they are theories. To this day, scientists are not smart enough to measure the total amount of rainfall on the earth in one day or figure out how to accurately measure the actual average temperature of the ocean. Conveniently, these computer models leave out such variables as increased cloud cover, increased volcanic activity, decreased heat from the planet, and decreased heat from the sun. They assume that these variables which actually vary will be a constant for the next 50 years. Any one of these variables could cool the planet 2 degrees or more in the next 50 years. That said, I am totally in favor of cleaner, less polluting forms of energy. I have lived in a solar-electric powered, 400 sq ft cabin for the last 27 years. Are you global warming fear mongers doing as much? Has Al Gore who recently spent $30,000 dollars in one year just to keep one of his mansions warm? No. I believe in doing what I can to reduce my waste and not in trying to force others to do it. As someone brilliant has said: "Waste is the only sin."

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gaiatechnician (author)mikey772009-02-28

I Know that climate change is occuring. I worked close to glacier zones in switzerland and norway and the locals told me that in 50 years the glaciers have gone back a lot. Al Gore showed pictures that say that is a world wide thing. and I live in Canada. They say that in a few years (even climate change deniers like our prime minister) the north west passage will be a main trade route. If a new trade route through what previously was impassible ice is not climate change, what is? Also, birds, their ranges are moving north. Also, garden climate zones in USA, they are moving north. Now, what is climate change if that isn't?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)mikey772009-01-15

It is not accurate to say that any of you know for sure that climate change is occurring.

Cite your sources. You can read the reference citations for the last three reports from IPCC for all of the evidence to the contrary. If you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't speak.

It is not accurate to say that any of you know for sure that it is caused by humans.

We don't know for sure that your brain won't explode before you finish reading this sentenceWe can always hope.... What we do know, based on year-on-year data from ice core samples going back 500,000 years, tree ring data going back 10,000 years, and 16O/18O ratios in sediments going back several million years, is that the combination of CO2 concentration and temperature rise observed in the past century is significantly (by several standard deviations) larger than any comparable variations during that time.

The same people (weather scientists) who cannot tell you what the temperature will be next week to within 10 degrees locally, somehow can tell what the temperature over the whole planet will be in 50 years to within 1 or 2 degrees? I am sorry, but this is scientifically and logically absurd.

Again, if you have no idea what you're talking about, you would be better off not saying anything. Weather and climate are two entirely different things. Weather is a local atmospheric phenomenon, and is well known to be a highly complex system with exponential sensitivity to initial conditions. That means it inherently unpredictable on long time scales (e.g., more than about a week out). Climate is the long-term regional or global averaged condition of atmospheric, land and sea temperatures, cloud cover and surface reflectivity (albedo), vegetation patterns, etc. As a longer term average, it is not subject to the same sensitivity as weather, and is highly predictable.

You claim to have actually studied this stuff, but your statements indicate that you are either unaware of, not understanding of, or blindly rejecting a vast array of independent research groups' analyses, using data collected planetwide over several decades.

The computer models for climate change? There are several of them, and each one incorporates and quotes uncertainties, which (correctly and appropriately) increase with the time over which the models are integrated.

The models can be tested by running them with input data from some time in the past, and comparing their "predictions" based only on those inputs with the actual climate data observed during the time "predicted." That comparison provides a direct test of the models' uncertainties and biases.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)kelseymh2009-01-16

I am not taking sides at all, really,but every first semester statistics student learns that

Correlation does NOT imply causation

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-16

Which is why you also need to read the primary source documents -- the research publications cited in the IPCC documents -- to see the evidence both for correlation (the start of the current extreme CO2 increase and warming coincident with European and American industrialization) and for causation (increases in various greenhouse gases coincident with industrial production and use of those gases, decreases coincident with their disuse).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)kelseymh2009-01-18

You statement on what is causation is not related to global warming at all, just that when people put more gases into the atmosphere, there are more of those gases in the atmosphere, that is not causation, that is just common sense.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-18

See NM's comment to which you agreed. I pointed out to you the underlying data supporting the causal connection -- measured increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, coincident with independently known use of those gases in industrialized countries, followed later in time with decreases coincident with their disuse. That is the data which supports the causal argument.

If you don't like it, that's your problem. But it's not a logical issue, it's your choice to ignore evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)kelseymh2009-01-19

There is a correlation between the amount of greenhouse gas in the air and the amount that humans produce, and I agree that that is probably causal, but the Earth does go through natural cycles, and I think that this may be one of them. Before, I was missing the connection between the gases and global warming and I was not connecting your two statements, sorry. I do not have any pre-conceived notion for or against global warming, but I agree that the Earth is warming up, I have yet to see enough evidence to convince myself that it was caused by humans. I don't really care if human are causing it or not because I still think that we need to clean up the planet and stop using fossil fules for both environmental and defense reasons.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-19

There is a decent summary discussion with references on (of all places) Wikipedia. If you are unable or unwilling to follow that link and read the information presented (and follow the citations to the primary research), I have attached two figures which may be of interests.

The first one shows variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration for the past 400 kya. The glacial/interglacial range is obvious. The anthropogenic increase in the past two hundred years is also obvious, and far in excess of natural cycles (despite your unsupported assertion).

The second figure shows year-on-year data from the Vostok ice core with the clear and unambigous correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)kelseymh2009-01-19

The link does put things in perspective about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the natural cycles, but greenhouse gases are not the only natural cycle that affects the Earth's temperature, there is also sunspot cycles, slight variations in Earth's orbit, etc.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-20

Please ignore the link in my previous comment. I did not realize that it would redirect you to a subscription login for Physics Today. Here, instead, is a PDF of the article.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)kelseymh2009-01-24

Thanks for the PDF, that appears to be evidence against my solar variations theory. You have provided enough evidence to convince me, but I still have my own unfounded doubts that I have to work through to be full convinced.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-24

Great! Empty assertions (mine or anyone else's) aren't evidence. If you've got doubts, try to put them in concrete terms -- what is it that you think isn't correct? what data do you need? -- and then do some research. The Wikipedia article on climate change has good citations to follows. Google Scholar is a search engine for primary research articles.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)kelseymh2009-01-25

My main prejudice you may say originated from how unimpressed I was by An Inconvenient Truth, I could not stand that movie or the man who made it. But I am slowly working through my doubts and convincing myself. Ive never used Google Scholar before, I assume its good because it is a Google product but have you had good experience with it?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-25

Yes, I use Google Scholar frequently, since I'm a practicing, professional scientist. It uses the same search interface as Google, but the search results are limited to peer-reviewed journal publications and the "official" preprint archives for scientific fields.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)kelseymh2009-01-26

That is nice, I will have to use that more often, Thanks for the tip. What sort of science do you do?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-27

Very few people bother to actually look at another user's profile before asking simple questions about them. Adrian monk is merely noting that you're the Nth person (where N is large) to ask me that same question :-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)kelseymh2009-01-27

Yeah, I had this EXACT conversation with you. State a dumb wrong "fact", get corrected, get mad, slowly realize how very right you are, finally ask in awe where you work. :D

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)Lithium Rain2009-01-28

Ya, I know what you mean, went to Caltech and working at Stanford, that is impressive. What was you "fact"?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)Ferrite2009-01-28

I think I said gravitons were only believed in by crazies. XD

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)kelseymh2009-01-28

Okay, I don't know why but I feel weird when I look at people user profiles, not trying to make an excuse, however.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-26

See my https://www.instructables.com/member/kelseymh/. I'm an experimental high-energy (particle) physicist at SLAC. My current research area is rare decays of B mesons, in particular, charmless semileptonic decays.

I'm starting to participate in ATLAS at the LHC, starting with software development for "background overlay validation" of the simulation code.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Ferrite2009-01-25

Yes, it is a good sign that you called it a prejudice ( An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts ) as it is apparant that such is rampant on both sides of the issue; that is, the main population either believes it or does not, without any evidence.
However, that fact that there is evidence to research gives one the option of either believing or understanding. Most of the answers given here have demonstrated that no one involved in this discussion just beleves in it, but has researched the evidences this doesn't mean you should not, by a long shot....I personally encourage people to question me and do the research.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
mikey77 (author)Goodhart2009-01-25

You are right.

As you said:
the main population either believes it or does not, without any evidence.

The majority believe this theory is an indisputable fact because of the relentless indoctrination by the mainstream media.

The global warming theory, as presented by politicians and the mainstream media, has never been about Objective Science. Any opposition to this issue is ridiculed and laughed at by the media and some people in this forum. It has always been about politics and power, not science. For some, the indoctrination by the media is so complete that they can not admit of even the possibility that they have been duped.

Sadly, they have doomed themselves and their children to becoming tax-slaves to greedy politicians and bumbling bureaucrats for the rest of their lives.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)mikey772009-01-26

Clearly you haven't adequately read or understood any of the discussion going on.

You are either inadvertently or deliberately ignoring the multiple postings from multiple participants, with references to scientific policy summaries and to original research.

You are either inadvertently or deliberately suppressing the vast array of primary research results which are freely available to anyone with the ability to type a search into Google Scholar and the intelligence to read them and ask questions.

You are either inadvertently or deliberately using scare tactics and ad hominem arguments rather than presenting any kind of objective evidence in support of your position.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)kelseymh2009-01-26

I think the scientific process is very useful, but I refuse to worship it as if it were a religion. I prefer to revere saints (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad) rather than scientists, as the highest form of human consciousness.

There's the problem right there.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
mikey77 (author)kelseymh2009-01-26

I'm sorry, but how on earth could I suppress:
the vast array of primary research results.

I have read all your links and I have thought about them. I really do care about what is true and what is not.

As an amateur scientist, I have great respect for anyone willing to do the hard effort it takes to do any kind of research, scientific or otherwise. Including you. But it is exactly that. It is research. The results of such research are not facts and they are not the truth. Many theories are routinely replaced by better theories next week or next year or next decade.

If you want to worship your version of science as if it were infallible and have the dogmatic belief that it can predict the future fifty years in advance, that is your choice. I will not go there. My common sense will not allow it. In my lifetime I have seen too many theories vaporize into thin air, to be replaced by newer, vaporous theories. I will not plan my life or live my life, based on your unproven theories, no matter how much you believe in them.

I think the scientific process is very useful, but I refuse to worship it as if it were a religion. I prefer to revere saints (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad) rather than scientists, as the highest form of human consciousness.

The people who are on the side of the global warming theory are the ones using relentless indoctrination and scare tactics.

Your so called scientific evidence is not objective, it is circumstantial and biased. And it will be replaced by new evidence, next week or next year or next decade.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)mikey772009-01-26

One definition of circumstantial is: Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Ferrite (author)mikey772009-01-26

I agree with the majority of people becoming tax slaves, most people have no idea what they are doing when the vote.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)mikey772009-01-25

The global warming theory, as presented by politicians and the mainstream media, has never been about Objective Science.

But that is the problem NONE of us here are promoting anything that is simply "media motivated" but rock solid scientific evidences have been presented. You may choose to ignore that, for what you believe, for whatever reasons you may have, just because the media seem to agree, but that is not a very scientific way to go about researching a subject, nor is it very logical.

Not believing is ok, but to ignore all the facts presented, for what a fringe minority wishes to believe is nothing short of similar beliefs in a flat earth, or the staging of the Lunar landings.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Goodhart2009-01-25

The majority believe this theory

One last note, the majority of those that do not understand that global warming is indeed fact, believe so, because they have not done the proper research into the matter.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Ferrite2009-01-19

Did you bother to look at the second plot? The correlation between temperature and CO2 is clear and unmistakable, even to an eye covered with ideological blinders. You can estimate the net effect of all of your other alleged drivers, simply by subtracting the blue and green plots and looking at the residuals.

You could also do a little bit of searching to find out what the primary researchers have found about those other drivers -- they're a few percent effect compared to CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)Ferrite2009-01-17

. However, correlation is required to prove causation. ;)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
mikey77 (author)kelseymh2009-01-16

Thank you for hoping that my brain will explode. Some would call that an utter lack of tact and decency. But not I.

To say that Weather is a local atmospheric phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. In fact the WEATHER is a global, not local phenomenon and it is influenced by the energy and magnetic field from the sun and the earth and the whole solar system. In fact, it is influenced by the whole universe.

Obviously the weather influences the climate. Especially over fifty years. Get real.

To quote you: if you have no idea what you're talking about, you would be better off not saying anything.

Over the last 25 years I have done a fair amount of computer programming. I have learned that all it takes is to change one line of a program to make it go in any direction you want it to. In a global warming programming model (theory not fact) you can easily tweak it to make it look like its cooling or warming.

I also know that when you treat variables such as cloud cover, volcanic action, the energy from the sun and the earth as fixed constants, that is not only bad programming, that is bad science.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)mikey772009-01-17

>>Some would call that an utter lack of tact and decency. But not I.

Okay, I'm confused...you want us to hope your brain will explode?

Suit yourself...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)Lithium Rain2009-01-17

If my brain explodes, I hope someone puts it on Youtube.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
KentsOkay (author)skunkbait2009-01-18

Yah! Mine too! We could do an exploding brain compilation...

BAM goes Kiteman, SIZZLE goes Hyneman, SPLOOSH went Nacho Mahma, <error 40 4not found> went Obama...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
KentsOkay (author)KentsOkay2009-01-18

To the tune of "Ode to Joy"

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer