Global Warming - What do you think (and tell kids)?

[packsaddle]

Wow, I had something like that thrown at me a couple of times as well. If this is true I'd be pleased to have Mr. Eckhart rehearse his 'fries' question at the drive thu.

That said, this is all much ado about very little. This kind of thing goes on all the time and it is mostly meaningless...unless, of course, it makes a headline. Then people 'think' it means something. It does in a way because it gives people who assume political postures the ammunition they need to adjust those postures.

His threats were just bluster, probably with little or no intimidation value. Whenever I get a threat like this I can be sure that there is almost nothing backing it up, so I just shrug, maybe give them a wink to see if there's really something to their inclination.

Same for this article, a snoozer. Nothing new for science, I'm afraid.

[Beavah]

Global Warming: A private firm's downgrade of its hurricane forecast raises an obvious question: If scientists can't get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?

 

A reasonable response is: They can't.

 

 

Nah, that's about the silliest thing I've heard in a while.

 

What da author is mixin' up here is the difference between micro events and overall averages. Weather is a micro event. Whether it rains on me this afternoon or not is a really, really hard thing to predict. Depends on all kinds of local and semi-random stuff. That doesn't mean it's hard to determine the average rainfall in my area of the country, or develop a trend based on the averages.

 

My local pizza guy a couple of blocks away always complains about how hard it is to predict business on any given night. Seems really random - sometimes he gets a lot, sometimes a little. But he's able to do an OK job budgetin' on a monthly basis.

 

Climate change is one of those big, long-term averages, eh? That's a much, much different problem than predictin' whether it's goin' to rain on Saturday. Ain't that many factors; incoming solar radiation gets either bound up in chemical energy through photosynthesis (very little), gets reflected or re-radiated into space, or heats up da planet. If we're decreasing the amount that gets re-radiated into space, then we increase the heatin' of the planet.

 

Dat's pretty simple, eh? Predictin' the big picture ain't hard. But figurin' out how that drives local stuff like drought, Atlantic hurricanes, local ocean temperatures, or whether it rains on my picnic this afternoon is a much harder problem.

 

I'd always tell the kids to assume anything in a lobbying/advocacy piece is deliberately misleadin' or just plain wrong. And da quote clearly comes from a lobbying/advocacy piece, eh? Same goes for Gore's movie, too. Kids need to learn to be aware of (and appropriately skeptical of) different sources.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, I think you're basically correct.

However, it really is very difficult to measure, much less predict, the overall balance of energy for the planet, for that matter even for a smaller object like, say, a lake. The energy in question isn't simply backradiation, it is also reflection, both off the atmosphere itself as well as off suspended dust, clouds, and landcover that changes rapidly (think grass and snow). These are not measured the same way or by the same instruments. Many times they are not measured at all for model purposes...they are calculated from estimates of cloud and snow cover, etc. You get the idea.

 

Given the uneven supply of that energy from the sun to the planet in the first place (think latitude, seasons, etc.) coupled with the extremely variable (in both space and time) loss of the energy from the planet...then the task of modeling the vast number of energy exchanges within the planet itself (in a vast number of fluids, solids, and places throughout the planet, in at least 4 dimensions) is daunting, to say the least. That we've even been able to make a model that produces anything like a reasonable output at all - is amazing. I salute the scientists who have been able to produce these things.

 

While I am wary of persons with political agendas, I nevertheless have to agree that predictions of models of such complexity are usually very tentative and this is currently being reflected (no pun intended) in the revisions of model predictions reported by scientists. Unfortunately, agenda-driven opinions tend to react quickly or overreact to every new result. Such opinions are not being driven by a desire for the truth. As Rush Limbaugh (the 'bald ego') says, "It's all about money." And it really is.

 

Personally, I deal with similar models on a much smaller scale, say river basins and watersheds. When I review submitted articles I look for the estimates of confidence associated with such model predictions. Often these are quite small (the levels of statistical confidence, that is). It doesn't make the model bad, it just makes the prediction less confident. If these predictions are used to form working hypotheses I am fine with them. If they are promoted for use in making public policy, then it is fair to subject them to public debate for better or worse. I don't know what Brent's true motives are, but to me they are unimportant. People who play the role of skeptic are necessary and when I do it, at least, I take great pleasure in it. And for this, global climate change is fertile ground.

[Aquila]

I'm not the hysterical type. I know others have different opinions. That's why I'm a MBC for the Citizenship and Public Health badges. The Scouts in our troop will be getting the right viewpoint -- mine ;-).