Re: [Paddlewise] Winter in a time of Climate Change

[ I haven't seen my first reply on this topic come across the
list yet.  Curious, but I've noticed substantial delays before. ]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:46:04PM -0800, Mark Sanders wrote:
> Yes it is strange how some scientific issues become politicized except it
> ignores the fact that one of the main proponents of GW is not a scientist,
> but a politician. 

Gore may be the most well-known outside the scientific community, but
he is not one of the principle exponents of the theory.  Surely nobody
is so naive as to think that the scientific community is persuadable by
mere politicians -- whether they agree or disagree with the scientific
community's consensus or disparate views?  We have defied far more
powerful figures.

Aside #1: I'm almost reluctant to use the word "theory", as many
non-scientists do not know what it means.  As a result, some of them
disparage scientific constructs as "mere theories" when it is politically
or personally convenient for them to do so -- most notably, at the moment,
when the theories in question are "evolution" or "global warming",
since the former runs contrary to assorted primitive superstitions
and the latter often runs contrary to their financial self-interest.
I occasionally find it instructive to remind them that we also have
a "theory" of gravity -- and that the empirical evidence available
to support that particular theory is considerably *less* than that
substantiating evolution or anthropomorphic causes for global warming.
I usually accompany that reminder with an invitation to contest the
validity of the theory of gravity, beginning on the roof of the nearest
tall structure.  Oddly enough, none yet have decided to express their
disagreement in a truly sincere manner.

Aside #2: as a scientist, I often find it remarkable that people who
would not know a partial differential equation if it were tattooed
on their forehead find it appropriate to weigh in on such matters.
Anyone who does not at minimum speak the language of advanced mathematics
is unqualified to take part in the debate *since that is the language
it is conducted in*.  They can no more do so than I could debate the
precise original wording of Homerian epics -- which were of course
first written down in a language I can't read.

But pressing on: there is no real disagreement that climate is changing.
(Any more than there is real disagreement over evolution.  The only
"controversy" is that speciously fabricated by reactionary winguts, and
these fundamentally dishonest, self-serving people -- more briefly, morons --
may safely be ignored.   Note that this propaganda takes disparate forms,
including the thoroughly-debunked Prius-worse-than-a-Hummer myth, the
last-decade-has-been-colder tripe, and the statistically naive group
of arguments involving forcing functions.)

There's also no real disagreement over the proximate cause: it's us.

Remaining serious debate focuses solely on (a) how bad it will get
(b) how quickly and (c) whether we can do anything about it.

One of the disturbing things in re (a) and (b) is that is that a number of
model predictions which were felt to be unduly pessimistic have turned out
to be too optimistic.  A partial look at this (at the layman's level) may
be found here:

	The cold truth about climate change
	http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html

But I recommend that -- if you're able -- that you go to the original
research papers and read those.  They're couched in the cautious language
of science, of course, but the implications, particularly in those on
ice sheet thinning and retreat, are alarming.  I once again return to
the same quote I used yesterday:

	The greatest shortcoming of the human race is man's inability
	to understand the exponential function.

		--- Albert A. Bartlett

For an excellent exposition on this point, see Robert Heinlein's 1952
essay "Where To?".  For a large-scale demonstration, continue to live
on this planet for the next several decades.

And I'll add this quote, which is also one of my favorites and quite
apropos to the discussion:

	The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured.  That
	is okay as far as it goes.  The second step is to disregard that
	which can't be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value.
	This is artificial and misleading.  The third step is to presume that
	what can't be measured easily really isn't very important.  This is
	blindness.  The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily
	measured doesn't exist.  This is suicide.

		--- social scientist Daniel Yankelovich describes
		the "McNamara fallacy".

---Rsk
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************