OT: I know how to solve global warming

[ToddT]

Renegade, read an acticle recently. had to with providing a sun screen. But un like your idea this is far practical.
First it has to do with, the fact theres to components to the global warming story. One is the obvious increased CO2, but a large part of the source of CO2 also emits large quatites of parcticlate matter. (which affects ice and water drop formation in the atmosphere)The CO2 increases the amount of heat trapped, but the parciclates reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. the US and Europe have made some good progress on partciacale ruduction, but china and india have currenlty offset it. the later 2 countries now starting to take steps to clean up in that area too.
This is where the Sun screen comes in as the parcticle pollution is cleaned up more solar engery ill reach the surface and the CO2 issue will reaaly make itself felt. So the This guy propose making around 10 million (can't remeber exact size but not huge) refecltor satlites place in the Earth Sun lagrange point. using nothing more than high quaalty glass (are something simialr that want darken to quickly) to block about 2 to 3% of the light reaching earth, the idea being to buy time to fix the co2 problem.
he refered the the Co2 nad particulate issue as a Faustian deal.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

People! Hydrogen engines, hybred engines, capacitator research - People *Are* doing things to fix pollution.

[Hunpecked]

As ToddT has hinted, if you want to decrease solar radiation reaching the earth, increased emission of aerosols is a lot easier and cheaper than building orbital sunscreens. Recall that the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 lowered global temperatures for years. The "year without a summer" in 1816 was caused by a series of volcanic eruptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

However, I wouldn't recommend such drastic action (or any action) to counter hypothetical catastrophes predicted by a field as immature and uncertain as climate science--especially when the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects (quite the opposite, in fact) on human civilization.

[AMF]

This may sound harsh, but, well, too bad: Don't be a fool.

Let's have a basic lesson here on how scientific progress works, shall we?

Science moves forward by deriving theories that explain the world, and comparing them to existing theories.

A new theory is progressive if and only if

1) it explains more than prior theories
2) it makes predictions that are later corroborated
3) it explains anomalies in prevailing theories

The mere presence of anomalies in a theory doesn't actually prove or disprove anything - progress only happens when competing theories are compared in terms of their explanatory power.

Anomalies will ALWAYS exist in theories - because no theory can ever fully explain the complexity of the real world. That is why it is a theory (a theory is a simplification of reality).

The classic example is newton-einstein-quantum mechanics. Newtown came up with the theory of gravity. But his work wasn't completely satisfying, since while it explained almost everything, it still had a few anomalies. So then einstein came along, and realized, hey, Newton was almost entirely correct, but here's a modification of his work. Ok, great, but Einstein was later supplanted and modified by quantum theory.

So, for example, when people claim that global warming is false simply by pointing to one anomaly ("the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects ...on human civilization.") then I say: it is completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is a theory that contrasts with current theories of global warming, explains everything they do and more, makes predictions that we can test, and explains existing anomalies.

In all the decades of study, NO ONE has been able to do that. Instead, everyone just says things like "oh, it's just natural that the globe is warming" - there is no theory there, only a knee-jerk rebuttal.

So, prior theories such as 'global cooling' have been supplanted by global warming theories which explain more, explain anomalies, and make predictions.

And it is just plain stupid and shortsighted to say things like "I wouldn't recommend...drastic action (or any action) to counter hypothetical catastrophes predicted by a field as immature and uncertain as climate science" - climate science is NOT immature, much as hunpecked wants to believe it is. It's been around as long as physics.

Hell, hunpecked quotes some climatalogist to attempt to refute Al Gore (failing at it by the way), but then claims that climate science is immature? Can't have it both ways.

And, most importantly of all: this is a big issue, and affects all of us. Our children, and our childrens' children will be living with the decisions our generation makes (or fails to make) regaring climate change. To say that we shouldn't do anything is selfish in the extreme.

Sorry if I sound harsh, or insulting, but it really burns me when people make decisions based upon what they WANT to believe, rather than accepting the overwhelming prepoderance of evidence, scientifically arrived at. Being unable or unwilling to change one's mind in the face of disconfirming evidence is what animals do, not humans.

Here's what I propose to all of ya: provide me with a testable supposition that would convince you that you were wrong. What criteria would need to be met for you to change your mind? Tell me that, and then I'll go and test it. And answer me this: if I meet your criteria, then will you change your mind? If I take whatever reasonable test you propose, and meet it, then do you think it possible to change your mind?

Again, I apologize for sounding harsh and/or insulting. But human civilizations have been practicing and refining science and scpetiicism for thousands of years, and improving our lives and understanding the world through it. Yet this discussion makes it clear that we are still so clearly enslaved to our passions and instincts that I feel I have to face this issue head on. The world is a tough place that may not conform to your belief system about what it should be like. Sorry. But reality is reality. Don’t drag the rest of us down simply because you believe in a reality that doesn't exist.

Thanks,

AMF

PS: Oh, RE: "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."

This is a false statement, made by someone ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, and sounds based on wishful thinking, as usual.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years

Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures.

[Renegade 13]

Will: I must disagree with you as well. Seems like I'm being a rather disagreeable person today, doesn't it?!

To qualify that statement somewhat, I'd say that you're mostly correct, just not totally. For most scientific fields, you would be correct, as the current, most accurate theories in most scientific fields don't require drastic and expensive climatic intervention due to their doomsday predictions.

The whole "global warming" scenario is rather unique. Remember; the global warming theory says that it is an unusual rise in temperature. That has not been proven, therefore the theory can not be accepted as truth. If the day comes when it actually is proven, then it can be accepted as fact.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I think what Renegade is saying is that the *Data* that the theory is based on is not clear, therefore the theory is too imprecise to base a plan of action on.

What Alarikf seems to be saying is that the theory still has the most consistant data that fits the facts and that the temperature is rising drastically, therefore we must take steps to lower it.

[Will]

We aren't spouting off doomsday scenarios here. The majority of scientists who are studying climate are saying that humans have had an impact on climate, but they don't go saying it's the end of the world either. That's what journalists are for.

What alarikf is saying, and what I'm saying, is: the data supports the model that humans have had an impact on the rise of temperatures in the world. You cannot deny the entire hypothesis that human action has increased global temperatures based solely on a few bits of data that does not fit the model. To deny the hypothesis, you must show that something else accounts for the data. You may introduce doubts about how much data is explained by the model, but by scientific reasoning, you cannot throw it out entirely unless you replace it with a better model OR show that the data does not fit the model after all.

So, sorry, but I'm not seeing why you have an objection. We have very accurate data from late 1800's to present for temperature (to within fractions of a degree). We have fairly accurate data going back several centuries (to within a few degrees when averaged out). We also have data that goes back for millenia from the arctic and antarctic ice shelves. It shows strong correlations between percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. The western Industrial Revolution has been steadily pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and the temperature has steadily been rising. Model fits. Where is the problem here?

[AMF]

Exactly

[Hunpecked]

From Will:

"The majority of scientists who are studying climate are saying that humans have had an impact on climate, but they don't go saying it's the end of the world either. That's what journalists are for.

And many politicians, like Al Gore. Unfortunately some people, like alarikf, seem to have bought into the alarmist scenarios (I doubt he'd be "physically sickened" by climate skeptics unless he really believed in Doomsday). The current "climate" (ouch) of hysteria has already led to expensive "corrective" action not justified by the actual science.

"You cannot deny the entire hypothesis that human action has increased global temperatures based solely on a few bits of data that does not fit the model."

I'm skeptical of the hypothesis because a lot of data don't fit the model.

"We have very accurate data from late 1800's to present for temperature..."

We don't. As I pointed out in an earlier post, even direct historical measurements are uncertain due to location, changes in location, lack of coverage (especially the oceans), changes in instrumentation, land use changes, etc. etc. Note also that satellite and balloon measurements show less warming than ground stations.

"...(to within fractions of a degree)."

We're confusing precision with accuracy here.

"We have fairly accurate data going back several centuries..."

See my earlier posts on climate proxies and the "hockey stick" debacle.

"It [ice cores] shows strong correlations between percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature."

Correlation is not causation. And as Gozra pointed out, it's an open question whether carbon dioxide changes preceded or actually followed temperature shifts. (All this assumes, of course, that ancient ice bubbles are as pristine as paleoclimatologists like to believe -- more uncertainty.)

But who knows? Maybe one day the ice drillers will find one of those Viking SUVs that caused the Medieval Warm Period!

[AngleWyrm]

I recall seeing pictures of a "hole" in the ozone layer, where the sunshine was threatening to pound the tip of South America.

My favorite part of the wiki article on Ozone Depletion:

"Because it is this same UV radiation that creates ozone in the ozone layer from O2 (regular oxygen) in the first place, a reduction in stratospheric ozone would actually tend to increase photochemical production of ozone..."