Comments on: Digging for Facts

By: Jean

Jean — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:09:17 +0000

Cathy,
Yes, I have read that emissions taxes will be popular with the politicians. More money for them to spend. Thanks so much for the links.

By: Cathy in NZ

Cathy in NZ — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:29:46 +0000

http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/
and then the new tax! on emissions…coming into force real soon!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1004/S00546.htm

I haven’t commented, because gov’t is always thinking up new money making schemes…oops taxes to deal with whatever. And this seems to be a key scheme of the momenti
.-= Cathy in NZ´s last blog ..Classes finished but still 1000s of words to GO! =-.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:50:12 +0000

I've been laying off the "science" lately, concentrating instead on history. In my new project, some of my pre-posted material is now scheduled as far out as July, 2012. Lots of work yet to go and, while I still read a bit on it, not much time to concentrate on studying climate. The subject -- not the science -- is settled so far as my concerns and I'm moving on to other interests. .-= Mike´s last blog ..Kite Surfer =-.

By: Jean

Jean — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:59:55 +0000

Mike,
You’ve clearly had enough to get the main point— that a lot of simplifications need to be made when modeling a complex system. Scientists are usually laughed at for being too wishy-washy, for not being definitive enough. And for being too interested in boring facts. Don’t Be Such a Scientist talks about this problem. The author said you sometimes need to simplify to get your point across. The whole global warming controversy shows the downside of that approach. Sometimes scientists just can’t win.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:50:19 +0000

Actually, that is rather humorous, but, then, I've had a little exposure to physics simplifications through the reactor theory I learned years ago. .-= Mike´s last blog ..Kite Surfer =-.

By: Jean

Jean — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:59:18 +0000

Mike,
Thanks! Yes, the system is so complicated that it’s impossible to predict with any great accuracy. I still remember our physics problem sets. They always had to make completely simplistic assumptions in order for us to solve the problems. One of my favorite jokes is

A physicist was talking to some farmers and said, “Assume a cow is a uniform sphere filled with milk.”

I imagine it’s a joke only a physics major could love.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:36:58 +0000

Jean, you may be interested in a post by Dr. Roy Spenser on his blog, "Warming in Last 50 Years Predicted by Natural Climate Cycles." He used a statistical model that looked at temperature changes after changes in 3 natural climate oscillations: Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO); and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). Interestingly, the results track the last 40 years of temperature change quite closely. Unfortunately, since it's difficult to predict with any precision what these oscillations are going to do, it's unlikely that this statistical model will be much help in long range climate prediction. .-= Mike´s last blog ..Kite Surfer =-.

By: Jean

Jean — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:09:57 +0000

Mike,
You’re preaching to the choir here…I’ve been a longtime supporter of groups advocating for clean air and water. My favorite organization is New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air and Water. They do little publicity but instead study issues and give expert testimony at regulatory hearings. They’re not anti-business so have credibility when businesses say they can’t afford antipollution measures.

Rummuser,
Trying to understand whether or not reducing fossil fuel use would help reduce global warming is less complicated than trying to understand the impact of geoengineering schemes, I think. They both rely on computer simulations, which happens to have been my career. We were always trying to get feedback from the real world to test our models.

Should you and I worry about climate change? We may be long gone before the answers come in. I keep remembering what one Keynesian economist said during Roosevelt’s New Deal: “Who cares about the long run. In the long run we’ll all be dead.” Not a very responsible approach, but one that we humans often take.

By: Rummuser

Rummuser — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:13:44 +0000

Jean, that is also a climate change! .-= Rummuser´s last blog ..Asking For Trouble. =-.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 06:01:38 +0000

The bases for cutting emissions assume that the climate system is very sensitive to changes in concentration of carbon dioxide. Some current research indicates that man-made global warming is overestimated by a factor of about 5 and that it is the climate system itself that is causing the climate to change. If this is true, nothing that mankind does is going to substantially affect global climate. Given that life on Earth is dependent on a very tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, is emissions reduction truly a positive goal? I think that resposible local and regional total pollutant emissions control is the right thing to do from the perspective of local and regional health and welfare. Failure to do so can and will produce local and regional conditions that are very horrific to the inhabitants. Despite the EPA endangerment finding, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. I, personally, have survived , for extended periods, carbon dioxide levels several times the current average atmospheric concentration, which, I believe is somewhere around 350 to 370 ppm. The atmospheric CO2 limit inside a submerged US submarine is several thousand ppm. .-= Mike´s last blog ..Kite Surfer =-.