| Global warming manmade? |
| Yes, definately. |
|
20% |
[ 2 ] |
| I'm not sure, don't know that much about it. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No. It's all a part of natural cycles. |
|
80% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| blackfoxtrade |
 Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:53 am Post subject: Global Warming |
 |
|
Associate
|
| For a few years already, global warming/climate change has been in the headlines. Scientists have not reached a consensus, but that is not necessary as the ones who deny it, are mostly paid for by oil companies or other organizations with vested interests. I've read a few books on the matter and I have a blog on it, but I would also like to know what you think about it. So, is it man made or not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Im Not Warren Buffett |
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
People extrapolate exceptionally short amounts of data too far into the future. Your question is worded kind of vaguely though, so you might want to clarify it.
I would say that humans being responsible for global warming is a possibility, but I would bet against most of the end scenarios you hear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tekbubble |
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Investing Manager
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 369
This Month: 0
12736.81 e$
Net worth: 12,736.81
Portfolio Value: 0.00
Monthly Return: 0.00%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| The poll is flawed, as someone could have studied the subject extensively and still not come to a definitive conclusion (a scientist perhaps). The poll assumes that only the ignorant haven't decided yet. That's really the problem with the whole debate isn't it? I mean no one, and I mean no one, knows with absolute certainty one way or another -- yet, everyone has made up their mind one way or another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| blackfoxtrade |
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Associate
|
| tekbubble wrote: | | The poll is flawed, as someone could have studied the subject extensively and still not come to a definitive conclusion (a scientist perhaps). The poll assumes that only the ignorant haven't decided yet. That's really the problem with the whole debate isn't it? I mean no one, and I mean no one, knows with absolute certainty one way or another -- yet, everyone has made up their mind one way or another. |
Scientists know what is happening and it is attributable to human actions. Almost all of the scientists who don't support the mainstream view are paid for by oil companies or other organizations with vested interest. The facts have been laid out for everyone to see, but it seems that some people just like to fight the 'mainstream' view just BECAUSE.
I'm not here to fight anyone, I just want to talk about the facts. If you've got a fact that you think shatters AGW, then shoot. I may be able to answer your questions and doubts.
Climate Change for the Perplexed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Im Not Warren Buffett |
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
| blackfoxtrade wrote: | Scientists know what is happening and it is attributable to human actions. Almost all of the scientists who don't support the mainstream view are paid for by oil companies or other organizations with vested interest. The facts have been laid out for everyone to see, but it seems that some people just like to fight the 'mainstream' view just BECAUSE.
I'm not here to fight anyone, I just want to talk about the facts. If you've got a fact that you think shatters AGW, then shoot. I may be able to answer your questions and doubts. |
A staggering degree of hubris on so many levels.
At one point all scientists knew the geocentric model of the universe was correct. Some pesky people had to question that too... just BECAUSE.
Scientists are terrible at admitting they don't have answers - and the need to be so precise means they are often precisely wrong, as opposed to approximately right. In short, cognitive bias and flaws lead them to take themselves far too seriously. I think this is a case of "observe the effect, find a cause."
So let's talk facts, and maybe you can answer my doubts.
We have the world's climate. Create a computer model that properly forecasts changes in CO2, temperature, sea level, etc. through the year 2050 with a tight statistical confidence level.
Or, build a model that can forecast the weather in Boston through Thanksgiving, because it seems like nobody can pull off that feat with any accuracy. I might need to go winter clothes shopping if it's going to stay cold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| blackfoxtrade |
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Associate
|
You need to understand that weather and climate are too entirely different things. Climate is far more predictable than weather, which has so many unpredictable players. It is a bit like the stock market - you can tell that the trend is up on a 6 month chart, but when asked to tell the direction of the trend on a 5 minute chart one can lose his money in a second.
Computer models are just as good as the data that was put into them in the first place. There are some good climate models and there are a lot of bad ones. They are backtested like any other computer model. And then they are put to use. I wouldn't trust everything on the climate models, there are lots of things that you cannot program it to do. Since the role of clouds is quite complicated, scientists have been unable to equate that into the models. The role of dust is also important and that wasn't considered until they realised that Europe was emitting less dust particles (with the widespread use of cleaner fuels), which lifted the lid off the pot.
Chart from IPCC IV Assesment Report, 2007
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Im Not Warren Buffett |
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
| blackfoxtrade wrote: | | You need to understand that weather and climate are too entirely different things. Climate is far more predictable than weather, which has so many unpredictable players. It is a bit like the stock market - you can tell that the trend is up on a 6 month chart, but when asked to tell the direction of the trend on a 5 minute chart one can lose his money in a second. |
Ok, so you can tell the trend is up, but can you tell what is causing the trend and/or the future direction? I think not.
Because I study behavioral finance and am around so many whiz-bang Ph.D. academics, I think I have a pretty good idea of how the people doing climate change research think. Global warming is a trough of funding, academic circles are incestuous pits of groupthink, and the individual academics often display stunning degrees of smugness and hubris. Add it up, and you get "answers"... because having an answer now is better than having accuracy later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| blackfoxtrade |
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Associate
|
To some degree, you are right. But that is not fair on scientists like Lonny Thompson who have been doing field research for years in one of the most desolate places on Earth, trying to recover the ice cores. The CO2 - temperature connection is not 100%, but it is bigger than you accept it to be. Of course there are other factors in it, but it is not down to natural variations (as far as we can say right now).
As you can see on the image, the natural carbon cycle has been disrupted by human activities. What's more, the ability of the oceans (especially the Southern Ocean) to dissolve CO2 has been falling lately, due to higher temp but also too much CO2. And even if we decided to ignore that, I find the report on ocean acidification by the British Royal Society very daunting indeed. If you are interested in the report, let me know. I have it on PDF, I also have a short summary.
NASA Earth Observatory
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tekbubble |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Investing Manager
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 369
This Month: 0
12736.81 e$
Net worth: 12,736.81
Portfolio Value: 0.00
Monthly Return: 0.00%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| blackfoxtrade wrote: | | tekbubble wrote: | | The poll is flawed, as someone could have studied the subject extensively and still not come to a definitive conclusion (a scientist perhaps). The poll assumes that only the ignorant haven't decided yet. That's really the problem with the whole debate isn't it? I mean no one, and I mean no one, knows with absolute certainty one way or another -- yet, everyone has made up their mind one way or another. |
Scientists know what is happening and it is attributable to human actions. Almost all of the scientists who don't support the mainstream view are paid for by oil companies or other organizations with vested interest. The facts have been laid out for everyone to see, but it seems that some people just like to fight the 'mainstream' view just BECAUSE.
I'm not here to fight anyone, I just want to talk about the facts. If you've got a fact that you think shatters AGW, then shoot. I may be able to answer your questions and doubts.
Climate Change for the Perplexed |
Ok, Fair Enough. But there are still reputable scientists who have studied this extensively and who still cannot say for certain. I have looked into this a lot, probably not as much as you but probably more than 90% of people who've picked one side or another and are sticking to it. And I've seen enough evidence and reason on both sides to withhold opinion. I've also seen enough hyperbole and un-truths on both sides to be sick to my stomach.
Either way, mitigation strategies for proponents of man-made global warming are necessary (for different reasons) even if those same proponents are wrong. So, to me, it is not necessary to form an opinion on something that so far seems un-knowable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| blackfoxtrade |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Associate
|
Tekbubble, you seem to be getting the message - even if we don't contribute to global warming, we need cleaner technologies. The levels of mercury, ozone, soot and dioxins needs to be cut dramatically.
The thing with some scientists is that they have their own little theories about the magnetic fields and sunspots. The theory of sunspots was shot down this year (or 2006, don't remember) but some people still hang on to it. And they have the right to. We don't really know much about sunspots and no scientist should rule out any factor. Scientists just have to give each factor a value and decide whether it is important in that particular theory/hypothesis. Those values can and have to change. My main point is that we don't really know much about sunspots or the Sun's magnetic fields, but given the data that we do have, it is fair to say that their role is minimal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Im Not Warren Buffett |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
| blackfoxtrade wrote: | | My main point is that we don't really know much about sunspots or the Sun's magnetic fields, but given the data that we do have, it is fair to say that their role is minimal. |
With the first part of your statement being true, a priori we can't make conclusions like you make in the second part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| blackfoxtrade |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Associate
|
| Im Not Warren Buffett wrote: | | With the first part of your statement being true, a priori we can't make conclusions like you make in the second part. |
You got me there. 
What I wanted to say is that we can only make conclusions on the information we have right now. So, with the information that we have now, we can conclude that it is not due to solar influences. Even though we know that we lack information on it, we have to make some sort of decisions on the data we do have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| LJBarker |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Investing Associate
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 28
This Month: 0
1869.87 e$
Net worth: 9,987.45
Portfolio Value: 4,708.58
Monthly Return: -26.40%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
 |
| blackfoxtrade i am interested in your post on oct 31. i would also be interested in the report and short summary |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Im Not Warren Buffett |
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
| blackfoxtrade wrote: | | What I wanted to say is that we can only make conclusions on the information we have right now. So, with the information that we have now, we can conclude that it is not due to solar influences. Even though we know that we lack information on it, we have to make some sort of decisions on the data we do have. |
Now we are really getting to the whole point of this, from my perspective... we objectively know the planet is warming, so "science" is going to find an "answer" that explains it.
Blackfox, I don't know what you do and I'm not trying to denigrate scientists, but you need to be aware that there is a possibility (and a historical track record) of jumping to conclusions a bit fast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| blackfoxtrade |
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Associate
|
I know that! But that's the big problem of science, you see. We can only make conclusions on the data that we have right now. Newton came up with the laws of gravity, but as centuries sped past, some problems started to arise. Then came the XX century and Einstein who solved those problems with new equations and theories.
I am not allowed to post the whole summary, it would take more than two paragraphs. So, I will paste it on one of my blogs. Click here for the summary. As for the report, you can find it here.
Global warming is just a hobby for me. I'm not a scientist or climate modeler, I'm a high school student.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
stock market game on the web. At eInvesting you compete for monthly cash prizes while you interact, make virtual dollars, purchase items, and trade in the realistic stock market simulator. We make investing FUN!
