I weep for Americans (Global warming poll).

The BBQ Pit
61

I assume that when the right wing says “we” as in Starving Artist’s question, they mean the US. Perhaps Starving could give us a cite for his question to clear that up.

Regarding your question, as you might imagine it varies greatly by region. There is a good general overview (which is from 2005, not really recent) here. Brazil, as you might imagine, is losing forest. The rest of South America is either neutral or is gaining forest.

However, a recent study by the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research using satellite data says that the FAO has greatly overestimated the forest loss. It is nothing to be complacent about, but according to the study the rate of deforestation dropped from 27,000 sq. km in 2004 to about 10,000 sq. km in 2009. Still more work to do, but we’re getting there slowly. Since the area of the Amazon Rainforest is on the order of five million square kilometres, the annual deforestation is now down to about 0.2% of the total area. Not a reason to be complacent, but we’re doing better.

62

You can pay for the carbon offset for the plane that just wooooooshed over your head. I went by one of those little kiosks at SFO this week.

63

I always figured even the most dense weren’t ignoring the fact of global warming, but were essentially saying that they didn’t believe the evidence pointed towards humans causing such warming.

64

Actually, that reply was not directed at you but to Oregon sunshine

I need to drop the use of “actually”. :slight_smile:

65

If only he’d posted something…
:stuck_out_tongue:

66

I hear this a lot, particularly from scientists. Let me explain why this is, not wrong, but inadequate in the context of the climate.

First, is there a “greenhouse effect”? Most assuredly. It is what keeps our planet well above the temperature that it would be if there were no greenhouse gases (mainly water vapor, CO2, and methane in order of importance) in the atmosphere.

But does the indisputable existence of the greenhouse effect mean that variations in the amount of greenhouse gases set or control the planetary temperature? By no means.

It is commonly held that predicting global temperature as a function of CO2 concentration changes is a one-dimensional problem. Many people say things like “It’s simple physics. Increased CO2 --> increased greenhouse effect --> increased temperature. How can you argue with simple physics?” Or, as L. G. says above, all the various considerations raised regarding the sun and polar bears and the Chicago temperature “doesn’t change the fucking indisputable physics behind the greenhouse effect.”

The difficulty is that the climate is an almost unimaginably complex dynamic system. It has five major intricate, interrelated, and incompletely understood subsystems —atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere. (And that’s not counting the extra-terrestrial system, involving solar radiation, magnetism, solar wind, cosmic rays, coronal mass ejections, and the like.)

Each of these subsystems has a host of known and unknown forcings, interactions, phase transitions, limitations, resonances, couplings, response times, feedbacks, natural cycles, emergent phenomena, constructal constraints, and control systems. Finally, climate is affected by things occurring on spatial scales from the molecular to the planetary, and on temporal scales from the instantaneous to millions of years.

To illustrate what this complexity means for L. G.'s “indisputable physics”, consider a similar “indisputable physics” problem in heat transfer. Suppose we take a block of aluminum six feet long and put one end of it into a bucket of hot water. We attach a thermometer to the other end, keep the water hot, and watch what happens. Fairly soon, the temperature at the other end of the block starts to rise. It’s a one-dimensional problem, ruled by indisputable physics.

To verify our results, we try it again, but this time with a block of iron. Once again the temperature soon rises at the other end, just a bit more slowly than the aluminum. We try it with a block of glass, and a block of wood, and a block of copper. In each case, after time, the temperature at the other end of the block rises. Clearly indisputable physics in each case. Heck, it probably even reaches the rarified level of fucking indisputable physics.

As a final test, I look around for something else that is six feet long to use in the investigation. Finding nothing, I have an inspiration. I sit down, put my feet in the hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth and wait for the temperature of my head to start rising. After all, heat transmission is indisputable physics, isn’t it? So I just sit with my feet in the hot water and wait for the temperature of my head to rise.

And wait.

And wait …

The moral of the story is that in dealing with complex systems such as the climate or the human body, the simplistic application of one-dimensional analyses or L. G.'s “indisputable physics” (even “fucking indisputable physics”) often predict results that have absolutely no resemblance to real world outcomes.

I leave you with a few thoughts on the nature of complex systems and “simple physics”:

“The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”
J. B. S. Haldane

“We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about ‘and’.”
Arthur Stanley Eddington

“What is important is that complex systems, richly cross-connected internally, have complex behaviours, and that these behaviours can be goal-seeking in complex patterns.”
W. Ross Ashby

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Attributed to Albert Einstein

67

As history shows, the early proponents that the increase of CO2 was going to be a problem for future generations were dismissed because they were so simple in their research and formulations.

Researches later found that CO2 interactions were more complex and realizing that was one of the reasons why most researchers agree nowadays that indeed we have a problem. History shows that your simple explanation is misleading.

Indeed.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

68

Say what? I don’t understand your post at all. Or perhaps you didn’t understand mine. What part of “history” shows that complex systems are amenable to simple solutions, as L. G. claims? Because your citation says nothing of the sort.

69

It seems to me that you are trying to say that L. G. is just being simplistic, maybe he does not consider all the complexities; however, current research **is **taking the complexities into account and that has lead virtually all current researchers into agreeing that we have a problem. Reading your piece, I have to say that you are still implying that by taking complexity into account we should expect the current climate researchers to be wrong.

The “simple physics” of Svante Arrhenius gave us predictions that indeed missed the mark. However, they gave us hints that lead researchers to the current consensus of today.

The point is that current research **does **take the complexities into account, and the result now is that “real world outcomes” regarding this subject are coming within the predicted levels.

70

Current research says that for a doubling of CO2, we can expect a ~ 3° temperature rise. This is what I am calling a “one-dimensional” analysis, as it posits a simple linear relationship of global temperature with a single variable, CO2. It assumes that nothing else affects the global temperature, that there are no limits, no governing factors, no constructal constraints, no goal seeking behaviour, no preferred states, and that everything else simply averages out. Complex systems, as my example shows, simply don’t work like that.

All that has changed since the time of Arrhenius is that he thought there was a linear relationship, but he expected a doubling of CO2 to lead to a ~ 5° change in temperature. In other words, the theory is no more complex now than it was then. It still posits a linear relationship. Only the size of the linear coefficient has changed, from ~ 5 to ~ 3. This is not taking into account any of the complexities I mentioned. It is merely a change in the coefficient.

This is the same as my example, where a certain change in temperature of the water is expected to have a linear relationship with the temperature at the other end of the block. But in a complex system like the human body, there is no such simple linear relationship. The temperature of the human body, like the temperature of the globe, depends on the complex interaction of a host of factors.

You are still saying “Increased CO2 → increased greenhouse effect → increased temperature.” This does not take any of the complexities I mentioned into account, no matter how many times you repeat your claim that it does. It is still a just a claim of a simple linear relationship, one that we don’t see in complex systems.

71

Piffle, it is you who is attempting it to make it more simple, other greenhouse gases are taken into account, particularly water vapor and methane. Besides, the lie that we are dealing now from outfits like Fox is showing that they continue to misrepresent the real researcher that said that indeed linearity is not what we should expect.

Saying that it is just linear allows deniers to make stupid assertions like “global warming has not been seen for a decade”.

72

One should add that looking at the history, that you clearly did not read, it is clear that researchers added more dimensions to the analysis and models.

Instead of disappearing, the greenhouse effect was found to remain and far from it, it **continues **to get more confirmation.

OTOH, lately almost all “research” brought forth by deniers shows to be already debunked or with so many errors as to clearly show that the skeptics that depend on them are showing us constantly what is their capacity to discriminate between good information and the bad.

It is not a very good one.

73

The way you wrote this, it looks like you accept the greenhouse effect. That means you accept that greenhouse gases are essential for keeping our planet at a higher temperature. Yet you doubt that varying those very essential greenhouse gases will control the dependent variable, temperature. That defies logic unless you’re suggesting that the variations are not enough to change temperature. To say so strongly, “By no means”, wouldn’t you have to be a climate scientist? Why bother having an opposing opinion of an expert if you have no expertise yourself? There’s not enough climate scientists in opposition, so opposing arguments are weak at the moment. So how can possibly trust your opposing opinion? I really don’t get this mindset.

So you’re suggesting that the climate scientists (the experts in this field) didn’t bother to include appropriate complexities. First, why do you think climate scientists are so stupid? Second, how could their models even remotely work at the level they’re working if they’re so negligent? That’s one hell of a coincidence. It’s almost like magic. Or maybe, just maybe, their models are pretty good, at least for now.

It seems to me that not only are they at the level of predicting that you’ll not have an increase in temperature at your head, they will predict that when you actually sit in the hot water for too long, you will start to experience hyperthermia with an increase of temperature at a certain rate. They can only speculate at which point you’re gonna die and they don’t how it’s gonna happen but so far the predictions look reliable. Of course all bets are off if you actually realize you’re getting ill and get out of the water.

But I’m not a climate scientist. What I don’t get is that some people appear to have an interest in this subject. Yet they never read (in depth, not cherry pick) what the climate scientists themselves say (like realclimate.org). You know, an honest effort at learning the subject and why the scientists would come to their conclusions.

Same happens with evolution (something I understand a little more). People will make outrageous claims from a ‘skeptics’ blog like, “where are all the transitional species?”. They never, ever bother to look up the actual science itself, which would have shown them tons of transitional species.

Again, what is the point of being interested in a subject without consulting the experts? Science isn’t perfect but scientific method is the best we got. What else do we have to rely on?

74

heatmiserfl, thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, you are still missing the point. Perhaps my example was not clear enough. Let me give you another example using statements that exactly parallel your statements.

I am sure that you accept that eating food is essential for keeping our bodies at a higher temperature.

Yet I doubt that varying those very essential nutrients will control the dependent variable, temperature.

Does this “defy logic” as well? Do you believe that since food keeps our bodies at a higher temperature, that eating more food will make our body temperature even higher and eating less food will lower our body temperature? Because that is the claim you are making about CO2.

You need to understand that whatever causes the rise in temperature may not be what controls the eventual temperature. You have the problem, once again, of applying a simplistic argument to a complex system.

Let me give you another example. If we take a horizontal piece of plywood, and put a marble near one edge, and then tip the plywood a few degrees, the marble runs straight down to the other side. Simple physics, right. Gravity.

But if we repeat the experiment using water and a slightly sloping piece of land, something totally different occurs. Instead of running straight down towards the ocean, the water starts to meander. It doesn’t go straight downhill as simply physics would suggest. It forms curves, and oxbows, and then it cuts off the oxbows and forms lakes. Most amazing, it doesn’t ever cease changing. Year after year, it cuts one bank and builds up the other bank, its endless changes to its path down the slope never stop.

Why doesn’t your simple physics work there? How can we understand that complex behaviour?

Now, remember the quote I put up before, that said:

“What is important is that complex systems, richly cross-connected internally, have complex behaviours, and that these behaviours can be goal-seeking in complex patterns.”
W. Ross Ashby

A river, or indeed any flow system which is far from equilibrium, is such a complex system. The river is exhibiting goal-seeking behaviour. At all times, it is trying to maximize the sum of the work done plus the work that is lost in turbulence. As a result, it does not operate in any simple manner. Instead of taking the shortest route to the ocean, it takes a wildly meandering route. But it is not a random route. It is a route which is maximizing the sum of two variables.

Once the pattern is established, the length of the river won’t change much. What it adds in one section of the river it will lose in another section. But the key thing to understand here is that the length of the river is not set by one variable (think CO2 in climate).

Instead, it is set by a complex goal-seeking interaction between the slope of the river and the amount of water it is carrying and the permeability of the soil and a host of other factors. The answer to “how long will the river be” can be calculated, that’s what the Constructal Law allows us to do. But it cannot be calculated with “simple physics”. Simple physics says that like a marble, the river will go straight downhill to the ocean. But instead, the river is “goal-seeking in complex patterns”.

And this is just a river, which is many orders of magnitude less complex than the climate. The idea that a single minor variable such as CO2 can alter the goal-seeking behaviour of the immensely complex global climate system is a convenient delusion.

There is more information about the Constructal Law at the Constructal Theory Web Portal, as well as a Wikipedia Article on the same subject. Finally, there is an article by Adrian Bejan (the discoverer of the Constructal Law and one of the most frequently cited scientists of our time) regarding the application of Constructal Theory to the climate here. Please read more about the Constructal Law and its application to complex systems. They will give you a much deeper understanding than I could ever give regarding why the climate is not governed by one minor variable, and why simple physics is inadequate for understanding complex systems.

75

Are you referring to the statement saying

that was recently reported in Fox News?

76

Once again, “simple physics” is not what researchers are dealing with. Chemistry is also involved, and once again, it is not only CO2

http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming.html

For some reason I see now more of an effort to deny that scientists today are taking all matter of complex interactions into account. Even so, scientists continue to get more confirmation that more warming is in our future.

But that is academical (however it is important to notice that academia is accepting the evidence and teaching students about the problem and implications)

Indeed, the subject of this thread is also Faux News and others distorting the science on purpose. Fucking irresponsible journalism, all in the name of profit.

Interesting to notice that even when it is demonstrated that guys like Beck and Hannity distorted the words of Mojib Latif, I’m only getting from you the idea that it is OK to ignore deceptions like that one, it allows one to say things like:

“So, rather than weep for Americans, you might congratulate us on being much more aware of the science than you are”

No, the American people are getting distorted information from places like Fox.

77

Gigobuster, you are so easy to woosh that it’s hardly any fun.

The statement I quoted wasn’t actually quoted from Fox News. It was quoted from Science Magazine, in the article I cited above.

But you took it and ran with it like a dog with a plastic bone in his teeth, using it to attack Fox, and to attack the American people for their stupidity, and to justify your attack on me for saying that Americans are much more aware of science than you are … but unfortunately for you, they are more aware of science than you are, as you have just proven once again, this time beyond any shadow of a doubt or any hope of redemption.

78

I detect only a sorry effort to avoid dealing with the issue. I was not dealing only with your quote, your quote can only **ignorantly **follow by ignoring what the FOX blobiators and your sources are doing.

Yep, still stupidly trying to avoid the issue.

Sure Mr. blogessor.

:stuck_out_tongue:

The fact is that with your reply you **demonstrated **that you are indeed ignoring on purpose and is glad of the clear deception that Fox and others are doing regarding the decadal variation.

79

Nice try at avoiding the fact that you were hooked deeper than the stupidest fish, and that you can’t tell a Fox quote from a quote from Science Magazine …

Regarding your further asinine comments, I’m not glad about anything about Fox. I don’t like them, I don’t watch them, I think in the main that they are despicable and that their “news” is worthless.

So once again, your groundless assumptions are 100% wrong, and I cordially invite you to bend over and place them where only your proctologist will have to endure your bile. Your comments about my supposed happiness about Fox are simply the nasty products of your vile imagination. You’ve managed to put as many lies and errors into your latest post as anything coming from Fox … which in its own way is quite an achievement.

80

Context, but it is clear you do not have the intellect to get it.

What took you so long to say it?

Bile? I’m laughing back here, you really think you are not being pitted too?

(hint: see the OP)

Lets see you can demonstrate that is just my imagination:

Do you **understand ****what ** is the deception that the fox blobiators are doing when twisting the words of Mojib Latif?

And then:

Do you **understand **that what Mojib Latif said explains how misleading you are on your “there has been no warming over the last ten years”?