Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

This is a meeting/seminar that I have to go to in about 10 minutes..

NASA/UAH Atmospheric Science Seminar

Title: What Should Be Done About Global Warming?

Presented by: Roy Spencer (UAH)

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 -- NSSTC 4065 -- 12:45 pm

ABSTRACT:
Science has nothing to say about what should be done to avert global
warming, because science has no values or morals. People do. I will
provide an overview of what I believe 'should be done' about global
warming, and what, in the end, will likely be done about the problem.
Because most opinions on this subject are rooted in beliefs about how
economies work, I will review some basic misconceptions about economics.
I will also discuss the concept of 'risk' in the context of global
warming. [Some toes are likely to be stepped upon, so bring your
steel-toe shoes.]

Ummm... Why do I get the feeling this is a day I'll regret leaving my camcorder at home?

Of course, the first thing I expect to come up is whether human influenced "global warming" is even happening (because, even in my ESS/EOS group here, that is hotly debated, and both sides are both right, and wrong at the same time.. yay..)

I'm-a fill ya in on this if/when I get out of there alive.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Hoo-doggie.

"Science has no values or morals. People do."

That's a comparison of apples and staplers.

_________________

I hope the concepts of 'stratego' and 'othello' are also discussed.

Seriously, though. When you come back, it'd be really cool if you outlined the more interesting and/or controversial points of the presentation, for debate purposes here.

Ha!

I agree. It'd be interesting to hear what was said. One of the more controversial subjects out there.

I'm-a try to get his powerpoint slides and elaborate on them (put in some of the things he said)

That was a lot more boring than I thought it wouls be.. I didn't see any fists or flying chairs.

There were some interesting things brought up...

One of the best was the issue of policymakers focusing more on shiny laws that have immediate benefit for thousands, but have hidden consequences for millions.

Like I said, I'm gonna try to get ahold of his powerpoint slides, and, with his permission, post them here.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Honestly, I don't see what's so controversial about this. Science, at its roots, should be objective. At least that's my understanding of things.

_________________

My understanding is that the controversial part is this:

"Humans are creating global warming!"

"No, we're not! It's a natural cycle of the earth!"

Repeat forever.

Or, more accurately:

"Humans are creating global warming!"

"No, we're not! The oil lobbyists that finance my campaigns say it's the natural cycle of the earth!"

_________________

That IS the exact point..

Controversy comes into the picture when lawmakers start making policy on science before the facts are all in or when they make policies that are to their advantage but detrimental to others.

The simple fact is, there just is not enough evidence to say either way.

The Earth IS getting warmer (but it's done that before).

Humans ARE pumping a lot of Carbon Dioxide (contrary to popular belief, CO2 is a "weak" contributor to "greenhouse" gases) into the air. The issue is whether or not that is having the effect we think it is. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has approximately doubled since the start of the industrial revolution. The models we have predict a certain increase of temperature. The actual increase measured is about half that much (and not statistically different from our understanding of "natural" increase). This could mean a number of things. One, that the CO2 measurements are off. Two, that the models are wrong. Three, that temperature measurements are wrong. Four, that there are factors that lead to, at least, a partial cooling of the planet to make up for the increase. Five, that there is no human influence on planetary temperature. Or, five, that our paleoclimatic records are wrong and the planet doesn't naturally increase it's temperature as much as we think..

See? Not as simple as "Oil Companies are causing global warming to line their pockets", is it?

One of the most interesting things to come out of the talk was that Exxon-Mobil is one of the leaders in researching alternative energy sources (Fossil Fuels WILL run out eventually, no matter what, so they'd better have alternate ways to make a buck). That kinda flies in the face of the "oil companies are suppressing alternative energy" thing you usually hear..

I still haven't been able to get the presentation slides. Dr Spencer wasn't in his office when I went to see him after I got out of class. I went to the meeting, then came back to my office to get my book for Atmospheric Radiation, made the "no flying chairs" post, and went to class.. By the time I got out, he'd left the building for the day. Poo.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.