[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

[Christopher Luebcke]

> we do not
> yet have nearly enough evidence to support either view.

I think you may be in the minority view there; a lot of people seem to think that there's quite enough evidence. 

> Truly> conclusive proof would require, at the very least, an alternate Earth
> (real or simulated) in which no species ever evolved to the point

> where it became a good idea to just start burning everything. 

This is in fact what climate modelers attempt to do, with imperfect but increasing accuracy (the accuracy of models being measured by "backcasting"--starting at a point some time in the past, running the model, and seeing if the predicted results match observations). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming for some examples of how this problem is addressed. No models are perfect and climate is notoriously difficult to model, but that doesn't mean we know nothing, and it doesn't mean we can't improve our knowledge.

I will also second the proposition that the best use of our resources, outside of research dollars to improve our understanding and forecasting abilities, is to start planning adaptation now. Given where I live, this involves adding flippers to my earthquake preparedness kit :P


----- Original Message ----
> From: Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 2:40:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
> 
> Max More :
> > Not only is the one-decade/12-year record of little importance, I still have 
> not seen adequate reason to maintain my doubts about the claim that century-long 
> warming is definitely and entirely due to human activity rather than to a 
> natural cyclical recovery from a cold period.
> 
> Haven't seen reason to maintain your doubts, eh? Perhaps you should
> abandon them, and jump on the mankind-driven bandwagon instead!
> 
> Couldn't resist.
> 
> Personally I am more-or-less with Max here in saying that we do not
> yet have nearly enough evidence to support either view. Truly
> conclusive proof would require, at the very least, an alternate Earth
> (real or simulated) in which no species ever evolved to the point
> where it became a good idea to just start burning everything.
> 
> It's fairly obvious, though, that if we are the chief cause of global
> warming then we have no idea what we should do differently to prevent
> it or even slow it down.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere
> 
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/othergas.htm
> 
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
> 
> Ugh, I actually hadn't read any of these before now (except the
> Wikipedia one, maybe, but I only skimmed it). Just Googled them up on
> the spot. We don't know anything!
> 
> Damien Broderick :
> > I would far rather see money spent on developing plants that are not
> > sensitive to heat & cold (interestingly, when plants are bred for cold
> > tolerance, they often have heat tolerance as well, as "side effect."), on
> > efficient energy production (so we can create affordable microclimates and
> > deal with rising sea levels, if we have to), etc. In other words - figure
> > out how to DEAL with the problem, not STOP it.>
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> More heat just means more energy. Let's load up on Stirling engines*
> and start building cities underwater! No sense in waiting for the sea
> level to rise and do it for us.
> 
> Or, you know, ideas that work. Like hardier plants.
> 
> This is not my job.
> 
> 
> *Actually, as I understand it, global warming could more accurately be
> called global climate change. The hots get hotter and the colds get
> colder; everything, everywhere, grows extreme. So a continent-spanning
> array of Stirling engines might actually be useful, taking advantage
> of temperature differentials on global scales. Any of our geoengineers
> want to run the numbers on that? I'll bet you it would only be
> economical if we could build such a device for almost nothing.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat