Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
67 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: G-8 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dane Peacock
United States
Stansbury Park
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
That tickles
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AP wrote:
The G-8 on Wednesday recognized for the first time that average global temperatures shouldn't exceed 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial times.

AP wrote:
White House officials confirmed that Obama agreed to language supporting a goal of keeping the world's average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

This brings up some questions.

EPA wrote:
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. From glacial periods (or "ice ages") where ice covered significant portions of the Earth to interglacial periods where ice retreated to the poles or melted entirely - the climate has continuously changed.


Knowing that the Earth has an extreme natural temperature range, are we seriously proposing to try and stop the Earth’s average global temperature from changing once and for all? That seems like a big goal seeing as how the Earth’s temperature sure wants to keep on changing and has done so dramatically for ages.

How long do we propose to keep Earth’s temperature from rising by 2 degrees Celsius, for the entire life of the planet?

Do we need to set a minimum limit? Are we going to allow the Earth to vary within a range of say, 4 or 5 degrees Celsius, or do we just need a maximum temperature?

Our current temperature and CO2 levels are considerably lower than in the past (EPA). What evidence did we use to determine with certainty that our current temperature is the perfect temperature for the Earth and Earth’s species?

And how exactly do we propose to stop the Earth’s temperature from doing what it has been naturally doing for billions of years?

There are five major identified drivers for temperature change: The sun’s intensity, Earth’s tilt and orbit, ocean currents, Earth’s geological activity (volcanoes), and the greenhouse gases (with water vapor comprising about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect).

These are some pretty massive, unpredictable things which all have huge impacts on the Earth’s changing temperatures. If our goal is to stop the Earth’s temperature from increasing by 2 degrees Celsius, we have to address these significant contributors do we not? Or perhaps this time we know with certainty that the average global temperature increase is definitely mankind’s fault?

And finally, If we do bring manmade CO2 in control, but then volcanoes, oceans, the planet, and the Sun have other ideas and want to continue to change the temperature of the planet, which they most certainly will based on billions of years of Earth’s natural climate history, then what do we do when the Earth decides to violate the 2 degree Celsius limit?
13 
 Thumb up
0.50
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benny
United States
Topeka
Kansas
flag msg tools
Everyone likes a piece of pie.
badge
That's wonderful. Good for you! I've always wanted to have a haunted house. It's been my lifelong dream!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sky Knight X wrote:
Our current temperature and CO2 levels are considerably lower than in the past (EPA). What evidence did we use to determine with certainty that our current temperature is the perfect temperature for the Earth and Earth’s species?


I don't think ideal temperature for the Earth is impetus for these changes. Instead, we are talking about the ideal temperature for humans, the vast majority of whom live on coasts and are extremely vulnerable to rising ocean levels due to rising global temperatures.

Maybe instead of worrying about global temperatures, we should just make everyone move to Kansas.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sky Knight X wrote:
Knowing that the Earth has an extreme natural temperature range, are we seriously proposing to try and stop the Earth’s average global temperature from changing once and for all?


The statement is about anthropogenic climate change. The stated goal is to limit the anthropogenic effects to an increase of 2 degrees. (A very unrealistic goal, but that's what they said.)

I don't think they are trying to modify the earth's temperature in 4 billion years when the Sun expands into a red giant and absorbs the earth within its body.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Destiny's got her hand way, way up in their puppets! It's an unpleasant tingling! The deepest of wriggles!
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Spoon!
badge
Well, once again we find that clowning and anarchy don't mix.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Benjro wrote:
Maybe instead of worrying about global temperatures, we should just make everyone move to Kansas.


Everybody stay the fuck out, please! I don't need a bunch of whiny new neighbors.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Destiny's got her hand way, way up in their puppets! It's an unpleasant tingling! The deepest of wriggles!
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Spoon!
badge
Well, once again we find that clowning and anarchy don't mix.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sky Knight X wrote:
....then what do we do when the Earth decides to violate the 2 degree Celsius limit?


We will pass bipartisan legislation to put a stop to those shenanigans.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
One thing for sure... if Earth does exceed the mandated temperature range... we'll have Obama there to apologize for America's part in it.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Sky Knight X wrote:
Knowing that the Earth has an extreme natural temperature range, are we seriously proposing to try and stop the Earth’s average global temperature from changing once and for all?


The statement is about anthropogenic climate change. The stated goal is to limit the anthropogenic effects to an increase of 2 degrees. (A very unrealistic goal, but that's what they said.)

I don't think they are trying to modify the earth's temperature in 4 billion years when the Sun expands into a red giant and absorbs the earth within its body.


I am constantly amazed at how they are able to divvy up the rise in temperatures to the different effects...oh yeah, they can't because the interactions between all of the natural systems plus man-made emissions is too difficult to model with any precision.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
I am constantly amazed at how they are able to divvy up the rise in temperatures to the different effects...oh yeah, they can't because the interactions between all of the natural systems plus man-made emissions is too difficult to model with any precision.


Of course. We don't even know what the "Earth's temperature" is all that accurately.

If it's just a vague goal that we don't even expect to meet, what difference does it make? I must be naive, but it seems to me good to have some idea of what kind of effects we're willing to tolerate, so we can work backwards and make estimates of what kinds of changes we need to achieve that. The models are imperfect, but would having no goals and no models be better?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
I am constantly amazed at how they are able to divvy up the rise in temperatures to the different effects...oh yeah, they can't because the interactions between all of the natural systems plus man-made emissions is too difficult to model with any precision.


Of course. We don't even know what the "Earth's temperature" is all that accurately.

If it's just a vague goal that we don't even expect to meet, what difference does it make? I must be naive, but it seems to me good to have some idea of what kind of effects we're willing to tolerate, so we can work backwards and make estimates of what kinds of changes we need to achieve that. The models are imperfect, but would having no goals and no models be better?

That depends. Do decision take into account the fact the models are inaccurate? I'm not in favor of the approach that assumes abad decision isbetter than none at all.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Do decision take into account the fact the models are inaccurate?


The modelers certainly try to predict the range of uncertainty for their models, just as most scientific results have error bars. Of course, if you don't believe the models, then you might not believe them about how much uncertainty there is, either. No one can make you believe something you don't want to believe.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Do decision take into account the fact the models are inaccurate?


The modelers certainly try to predict the range of uncertainty for their models, just as most scientific results have error bars. Of course, if you don't believe the models, then you might not believe them about how much uncertainty there is, either. No one can make you believe something you don't want to believe.

Ironic you should take the tone of speaking down to the ignorant slob with me. One of my current lines of research is developing a non-linear approach to hydrodynamics using field theory techniques. I know which models I can trust and why aswell as how far. I admit though that atmospheric applications are not of direct interest to me so that most of what I know on the matter is what I read in the articles and letters to the editor of both Physics Today and APS News, which I regularly receive as part of my membership in the American PhysicalSociety.

In short, I'm not convinced because my colleagues who do do their research in the field are not clearly convinced of anthrogenic global warming. In other words, based on the most up to date info available from experts in the field as presented in a publication for physicists [experts in the field], I am inclined to doubt until and unless I am convinced that the lack of concensus among my colleagues who are the specialists should be ill-founded.

What's your excuse for the pedantic tone?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Ironic you should take the tone of speaking down to the ignorant slob with me. One of my current lines of research is developing a non-linear approach to hydrodynamics using field theory techniques.


I meant exactly what I said. The modelers do their best to do exactly what you asked for, estimate the uncertainty in the models as well as the prediction itself, but if you don't trust the modelers, then you aren't going to trust their estimates of uncertainty either, and there's nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. I'm not talking down to you, and I don't think you're ignorant. This "I'm doing research" line is getting a little tiresome, though. It's like a hobby of yours, right? Anyone can "do research", the test is whether you come up with anything.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
First, the west will shackle itself to tight restrictions on emissions. This will give the "developing polluters" a huge economic advantage over us, and it will encourage the relocation of even more jobs to these countries due to higher production costs associated with tighter emissions standards.


Well, I'm glad that you will at least support the provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill that prevent this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Ironic you should take the tone of speaking down to the ignorant slob with me. One of my current lines of research is developing a non-linear approach to hydrodynamics using field theory techniques.


I meant exactly what I said. The modelers do their best to do exactly what you asked for, estimate the uncertainty in the models as well as the prediction itself, but if you don't trust the modelers, then you aren't going to trust their estimates of uncertainty either, and there's nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. I'm not talking down to you, and I don't think you're ignorant. This "I'm doing research" line is getting a little tiresome, though. It's like a hobby of yours, right? Anyone can "do research", the test is whether you come up with anything.

I apologize if I find you rude when you are not intnding to be but I find the constant subtle belittling of anyone who disagrees with you irritating as well. I am hoping it's a cross-cultural misunderstanding or something.

As for references to research, I'm not trying to impress; I'm merely stating that I do not have a sufficiently weak ego for your tactics to sit well. If you wish to politely discuss, please do so but you seem to be constantly rude and subtly insulting to virtually everyone without cause.I intended to say no more with my comment than that I am not about to go away and shut up as you seem to wish merely because I'm afraid you'll make me look silly.

Again, I hope we're having a misunderstanding but you seem at least to be unable to post without insulting in some subtle fashion anyone who dares disagree. Am I misunderstanding your intended means of argumentation whenI seem to see the pattern that you simply poke fun at any incidnetal details you can or think you can, only addressing the substanceof of any given post when the mood strikes?

So, for example in the post in question, you never addressed the issue of whether or not gov't officials ought be sure based on expert opinions that a scientific model's predictions are reliable before acting on them. You instead SEEMED to just insinuate that anyone who did not accept them was a self-deluding fool. I responded by pointing out why I thought your tactic out of place and more specifically citing my sources [which you ignored of course] for considering the question not so settled.

If you did not intend merely to belittle and insult, please explain because there's clearly a misunderstanding. If however that was your intention as I personally am reluctantly inclined to suppose, I wish to just politely ask you to knock it off please.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:


Yes, exactly. I hope you'll let your elected representatives know of your support.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Am I misunderstanding your intended means of argumentation


Yes. I seriously thought I was answering your question. You asked whether the decisions take into account the fact that the models are inaccurate. The answer is, yes, definitely. As I said, the modelers try to the best of their ability to not only make predictions, but to provide scientifically justified conclusions about the range of uncertainty in those predictions. And decision makers (at least, the smart ones) have definitely been looking at that data.

Quote:
you never addressed the issue of whether or not gov't officials ought be sure based on expert opinions that a scientific model's predictions are reliable before acting on them.


I didn't discuss it because it's obviously true. The question is how to apply that principle to climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists who've studied the question think that global warming is a grave threat, i.e., that the probability of a serious calamity if we do nothing is high enough to justify the cost of prompt action.

At what point does that become enough to act? Should we require total unanimity? If that were the standard, we wouldn't be spending any money now on HIV research.

Quote:
I responded by pointing out why I thought your tactic out of place and more specifically citing my sources [which you ignored of course] for considering the question not so settled.


Well, you don't believe in the consensus, based on what you've read. That's your right. If what you have read doesn't convince you, then I don't think anything I say will convince you either. So I'm not going to try. I'm sorry if you find that insulting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an “extraordinary first step,” but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution.


Just do me a favor and remember this the next time Tripp claims I'm a kneejerk supporter of whatever Obama says.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Ironic you should take the tone of speaking down to the ignorant slob with me. One of my current lines of research is developing a non-linear approach to hydrodynamics using field theory techniques.


I meant exactly what I said. The modelers do their best ....


To be fair, they could do a lot better. The work on this is beginning to become more interdisciplinary, so hopefully bigger strides can be made.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
To be fair, they could do a lot better. The work on this is beginning to become more interdisciplinary, so hopefully bigger strides can be made.


This is back to your hobbyhorse that the modelers are somehow ignorant of statistics? I have talked to people who do this work, I know from my direct experience that you're wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Quote:
President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an “extraordinary first step,” but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution.


Just do me a favor and remember this the next time Tripp claims I'm a kneejerk supporter of whatever Obama says.


Crap! Does this mean I'm not getting another $1500 payday soon?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Ironic you should take the tone of speaking down to the ignorant slob with me. One of my current lines of research is developing a non-linear approach to hydrodynamics using field theory techniques.


I meant exactly what I said. The modelers do their best ....


To be fair, they could do a lot better. The work on this is beginning to become more interdisciplinary, so hopefully bigger strides can be made.


I don't quite understand this either.........climatology is already an interdisciplinary field. Typically research teams have physicists, geoscientists, statisticians all working on large scale projects. On an individual basis, many PhD climatologists have math/physics backgrounds. Besides, if poor models are getting through peer review, then the journals themselves should be seeking out more qualified reviewers.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Crap! Does this mean I'm not getting another $1500 payday soon?


If you can find a way I can convince the RNC to send you their money, please let me know and I'll do it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
To be fair, they could do a lot better. The work on this is beginning to become more interdisciplinary, so hopefully bigger strides can be made.


This is back to your hobbyhorse that the modelers are somehow ignorant of statistics? I have talked to people who do this work, I know from my direct experience that you're wrong.


Sigh....

David, I am glad that you have personally conversed with these people to know there statistical expertise. I don't necessarily think they are ignorant of statistics; however, I also don't think they necessarily know cutting edge statistical research. If this is a problem that is going to threaten the Earth as we know it, then I want the best person in every field working on it. Not just a climatologist who picked up some statistics in a graduate course. Of course, I could be wrong and you might be actively doing research in statistical models that account for the types of error encountered in models of the same family used in climate research -- if so, I apologize and would love to hear more about it.

Just got back from a meeting at SAMSI (Statistical and Applied Mathematical Institute) discussing how the error in these models (which are really just big computational models -- or "agent-based" models) is not usually accounted for at every level. So the correct amount of error isn't propogated through the model, which means that the confidence bands for the final predictions on the temperature change is likely too narrow.

As of now, I think it is unclear what those confidence bands will be after the error is correctly modeled through all levels of the model.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
If this is a problem that is going to threaten the Earth as we know it, then I want the best person in every field working on it.


Fine with me. No one is barring statisticians, and having more smart people working on the problem is not bad. These are hard problems and there's always more to be done.

Quote:
Of course, I could be wrong and you might be actively doing research in statistical models that account for the types of error encountered in models of the same family used in climate research -- if so, I apologize and would love to hear more about it.


No, not really my field. I do know enough about it to know that naive models often yield uncertainties that are too conservative, not too optimstic. In any case, while doing a better job of this sort of modeling is certainly useful, it's quite peripheral to the question of what confidence policy makers should have in model outputs. The biggest sources of uncertainty in model outputs don't have to do with error propagation, anyway. We have much bigger problems with simply not knowing what some of the parameters should be.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Your direct experience of talking to them about their work? Isn't that more like . . . indirect experience?


No, it's not. By hearing someone explain their work, I get direct knowledge of their competence and expertise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.