Global nothing-to-worry-about-ing
March 12, 2008
It is a part of human nature to establish causal chains in an attempt to explain the world around us. A problem arises when causality is confused with correlation.
I am not debating the existence of rising global temperatures nor increased carbon emissions; temperature fluctuations demonstrating periodic behaviour have spanned more than 10°C long before modern human existence. However multiple, compounded effects are responsible and it may be more scientifically responsible to attribute current rises to random oscillations and concentrate research on other areas.
Randomness of an event is often confused with an absence of causality. Instead it should be seen as such an abundance of causes that none can be pinpointed sufficiently to predict an outcome.
To paraphrase an analogy I read – “when an ancient man scratched his nose and it began to rain he attributed the rain to this simple act being unaware of the true source”. I recommend reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Fooled by Randomness.
Entry Filed under: Environment, Statistics. Tags: carbon, emissions, global warming, random.
8 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
anonymous | March 17, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Yes, of course. Even if the greatest scientists in the world (like the ones of the AAAS) have said that global climate change is “caused by human activities”.
2.
shlog | March 18, 2008 at 1:16 am
Don’t we all love the anonymous commenter with nothing to add to the debate?
3.
anonymous | March 18, 2008 at 10:12 am
If there was a debate. You simply made an assertion. Which is wrong. Global climate change isn’t random.
But science is based on doubt. So you can’t make a scientific assertions, neither can I. We can only make theories.
So the “true” answer (or the best we have) is that global climate change looks 99% more like the models in which human beings are causing it than in 1% of the models in which it’s only random.
4.
shlog | March 18, 2008 at 10:40 am
Thank you for some constructive criticism; it is after all the reason I make some of these posts.
My “assertion” was in fact carefully worded to suggest a possible alternative and not to present any evidence I have to support it. Consider it me putting an idea out on the table.
I personally have not seen models based on either assumption and have never claimed to. I would be interested in seeing your source for this 99% vs 1% (I’ll accept that these numbers are for the sake of an argument) comparison though. One really shouldn’t make assertions like this without providing proof.
5.
anonymous | March 18, 2008 at 11:14 am
You’re right. So here it is:
“There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. Increases in GHGs tend to warm the surface while the net effect of increases in aerosols tends to cool it. The net effect due to human activities since the pre-industrial era is one of warming (+1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2). In comparison, changes in solar irradiance are estimated to have caused a small warming effect (+0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W/m2).”
Quoted from “Climate Change 2007: The Synthesis Report” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
6.
shlog | March 18, 2008 at 11:47 am
Thank you. My hypothesis stands corrected.
I appreciate someone taking the time to construct and support a valid argument.
7.
madscientist | July 3, 2008 at 8:15 pm
i have to disagree with anonymous, you may or may not be correct in your opinion of climate change. however 250 years of climate history is very little to base any theory on being as ice ages last for thousands of years themselves. whats 250 years in the scheme of things? maybe just a fluke.
8.
raving loon | January 19, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I see you have offended the religion of global warming alarmists, and cast the slightest doubt that their “theory” might be the slightest bit unsound.
The venom most of these alarmists carry is only surpassed by the sheer bloody mindedness, and fervor of religous Jihad. Both believe just as fiercely in their “faith”.
For every expert you quote for one point of view for the argument, the other side can quote a similarly credentialled expert, it is pointless quoting and counter quoting so called “experts” ad nauseum, so i will not indulge.
All I ask is to not believe everything shoved at you as gospel and infallable, look at both sides before making any firm and fast decisions.
Firstly, consider the posability that the so called global warming might be in part a result of urban sprawl swamping measuring stations with what is known as urban heat soak. Read it here
http://www.john-daly.com/surftemp.htm
Can I also ask what part the 99% of warming casued by man made global warming was responsable for the 30 odd years of global cooling up to the mid 1970’s? Yes the earth actually cooled for 30 years, and cooled to such a noticable extent that the same “scientists” were telling us we were heading for another ice age. It’s true, it was the featured article in Time Magazine in June 1974. There article is preserved and can be read here.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
What I would like everyone to do is get googling and try and find a graph plotting solar activity against global temperatures. Solar activity has been measured accurately for the last 400 years that I know of through sun spot observation. Yes there is a direct correlation between sun spot duration and the amount of energy the sun is producing. You may be surprised at what you find. If you want some heavyweight readin on the subject, try starting here.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Surprisingly, the sun does not radiate a fixed amount of energy like some light bulb, it is constantly waxing and waning through several well known cycles of varying duration.
I do not ask you to believe anything, unlike global warming alarmists who will savagely attack you for dareing to be a heretic, all I ask you is to investigate every posability and approach this debate with an open mind, and consider the other possabilities.