Question about Global Warming Comic

[Nicky]

Simple fact: WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TEMPERATURES HAVE FLUCTUATED IN THE PAST, OVER ANY GIVEN 50 YEAR PERIOD, before the 1800s.

The use of the word "unprecedented" implies that we know that. We don't. So, whenever someone uses that word, they're lying.

So that's a non-starter. No climate scientist should ever use that word. Instead, they should acknowledge that hole in their knowledge, and the possibility that the current rise in temperature isn't unprecedented.

P.S. There is no cause and effect relationship between these two propositions:

1. the current climate change is unprecedented

2. the current climate change is man made and harmful

If nr. 2 is in fact true, You can prove it without relying on nr. 1. And you should, since nr. 1 is impossible to prove.

Not only that, but everything we know about nature tells us that nr. 1 is probably a false claim.

So, this whole line of reasoning, where people use the "unprecedented climate change" as evidence of their claims that it's man made, harmful and permanent, is fallacious. It should be dismissed, off the bat. And I doubt these scientists are stupid enough not to realize that...so they're engaging in wilful propaganda: they don't believe the general population would be able to evaluate the actual research, so they're relying on this simple but false argument to try and convince us instead.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Nicky

[DonAthos]

11 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

I have no reason to doubt the paleoclimatology data that I linked to above (Wiki article contains various charts), as long as one recognizes that there's a degree of error involved, particularly because the very concept "global temperature" is an average of averages (across time and space).

Fine. Also, there's a "degree of error" in every measurement, yes? But we don't take that to mean that we cannot rely upon measurement as such. We don't throw out measurements, or cease using them, due to this degree of error which is inherent to all measurement.

So with respect to global warming, we have our current science -- whatever it happens to be. We have all of the data we have collected, and the models we have produced in order to explain that data and extrapolate into the future. It all comes with the degree of error that we've discussed, according to the processes used in their collection/construction, but what better choice do we have apart from using the data we've collected and using the best models that we can currently produce?

11 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

For the moment, if we take that record as correct, we could definitely answer whether the change is unusual in any particular period. As a starting point, we need to decide what we mean with a little more precision: what is unprecedented? the level? the rate of rise? during what period: last 100 years? last 50 years? compared to what: last 500 years? last 2000 years? last 5000 years? 

So we can define what we mean by "rising" (i.e., level or rate), "now", and  "the past". Then, we can see if "now" is "rising" unprecedently compared to "the past".

Sure. We could define what we observe today against any conceivable measure we have of the past. But it must be against some measure that we have of the past.

Is there a paucity of our knowledge of the past? Yes. There always has been, and there always will be. While our records will continue to grow and continue to get better, they will never be complete. It will always be possible to criticize such comparisons on this basis -- that our records of the past are incomplete, and are assessed by different methods than modern data collection. So unless we're prepared to never find anything we discover about today, and today's climate, unusual or surprising or worth particular investigation, etc.  -- unless we consider ourselves flatly unable to compare today with yesterday (because our ability to measure "today" will always greatly outstrip our knowledge of "yesterday") -- then we must make do with such information we have at present.

So yes, you take any given timeframe for "now" and compare it to a particular "past" -- according to the information you have about the past -- and that would allow you to make possible inferences about what you're observing now. When something you see about "today" looks different from what you know about "yesterday," that draws attention and calls for explanation.

Actually, I think that describes the rhetorical thrust of the comic we're discussing.

And it is (potentially) important. Why? Because suppose that the current climate phenomena (whatever we take them to be) really are unusual, noteworthy, unprecedented (which does not mean against a standard of omniscience, contra Nicky, but only against what we currently know: the full expression, if not always articulated, is "unprecedented so far as we know"). Then it conceivably becomes a matter for particular investigation -- something we wish to explain, or need to explain, depending on the stakes involved.

If, however, we dismiss the claim that what we presently observe about changes in the climate is "unusual, noteworthy, unprecedented" -- if we say that this is simply what happens in the climate, there are spikes and dips, and ("very likely") always have been -- then perhaps there is not so much a pressing need for an inquiry into or an explanation of our current cycle. Perhaps the time and resources that individuals might spend in coming to understand, or impact, a natural and not unusual process would be better spent elsewhere and on other things.

In an attempt to summarize:

We have observations about the current climate. Some people suggest that what we observe is unusual, but this can only be done against whatever records we have of the past. While it may be true that what we observe is unusual against the records of the past we currently have, the critique of such claims is that our knowledge of the past is poor such that we cannot rightly know what is "unusual." Presumably then, absent some miracle technology which would somehow provide us with a flawless, detailed record of past climate (which probably will never exist), it is and will remain inappropriate to compare today's climate -- including, most importantly for this discussion, rate of change -- with the past.

Thus, if anything is happening today which is out-of-step with the typical processes which have governed our climate for most of human history (whether man-caused or not), we will never be in a position to recognize it. And if we are engaged in an unusual process currently, and if there were time to assess the causes and perhaps effect change to avoid some potential catastrophe (if catastrophe awaits), then we are SOL, because in the first place we will not be able to recognize that there's something unusual afoot.

Do I have it?

[softwareNerd]

7 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Do I have it?

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that we do not know if the last 100 years is unusual or are you saying that we will never know? The second would be too strong a statement. The rough estimates we have today would probably seem like a miracle to people from (say) 40 or 50 years ago. 

[Nicky]

Quote

And it is (potentially) important. Why? Because suppose that the current climate phenomena (whatever we take them to be) really are unusual, noteworthy, unprecedented (which does not mean against a standard of omniscience, contra Nicky, but only against what we currently know: the full expression, if not always articulated, is "unprecedented so far as we know").

Right...and you're a child molester so far as we know. But that doesn't mean that there's any actual truth value in me making that statement for any purpose other than to illustrate how absurd it is to make an arbitrary claim, add "so far as we know" to it, and pretend it's not a lie, now that there's a disclaimer at the end of it.

[Nicky]

10 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that we do not know if the last 100 years is unusual or are you saying that we will never know? The second would be too strong a statement. The rough estimates we have today would probably seem like a miracle to people from (say) 40 or 50 years ago. 

Is it the last 100 years, though? The graphs I'm looking at don't show significant warming until the 1970s. Things look fairly stable, until then, with minor fluctuations up and down. So isn't it only the last 50 years? Which makes it even more unlikely that one could prove the "unprecedented" claim.

Disproving the claim would certainly be possible...because all you need for that is evidence of one instance of similar warming. But proving it right would be pretty much impossible. You would need evidence of temperature or CO2 concentration changes for all (or at least most) 50 year periods in history.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Nicky

[DonAthos]

28 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Right...and you're a child molester so far as we know. But that doesn't mean that there's any actual truth value in me making that statement for any purpose other than to illustrate how absurd it is to make an arbitrary claim, add "so far as we know" to it, and pretend it's not a lie, now that there's a disclaimer at the end of it.

There is a categorical difference between making a supportable claim about the records we have, e.g. that what we're currently witnessing in the climate is unprecedented "so far as we know," which means that all of the information we've thus far gathered supports that conclusion and nothing contradicts it, versus slinging around baseless and incendiary terms like child molester in a cheap attempt at trolling/obfuscation. I'd say I expected better from you, but that would be a lie.

16 minutes ago, Nicky said:

But proving it right would be pretty much impossible. You would need evidence of temperature or CO2 concentration changes for all (or at least most) 50 year periods in history.

Bingo. The (false) standard being set here for human knowledge is omniscience. Against such a standard, and those who invoke it when they need to dismiss claims or research they dislike, no wonder that even the vast and growing consensus of scientists cannot make headway. I suppose jet fuel can't melt steel beams either, eh Nicky?

[softwareNerd]

3 hours ago, Nicky said:

Is it the last 100 years, though?

I wasn't trying to focus on 100. I actually meant "recent" but wanted to make it concrete as an example. I think DonAthos is still speaking quite abstractly, not referencing actual known data; so, I essentially just used a plausible concrete for "recent".

 

3 hours ago, Nicky said:

... proving it right would be pretty much impossible. You would need evidence of temperature or CO2 concentration changes for all (or at least most) 50 year periods in history.

We may not be able to know that historical data today, but someone might figure out a way to know it. DonAthos was asking about the knowable, rather than the known.

 

3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

... The (false) standard being set here for human knowledge is omniscience.

See my question to Nicky above. I don't think Nicky is asking for omniscience, just for evidence. Anyhow, for my part, I'm the eternal optimist that humans will figure out all sorts of stuff. I would not be surprised if some scientist, some day, can figure out the average temperature of every year in history, within a range of error than is useful.

[dream_weaver]

The question, on global warming (or global cooling as it was deemed in the 70's), masks under a veneer of science that man is the unnatural element in the equation. If it were not for man's unnatural meddling with creation, things would be different, and sure enough, things would be different.

It posits a psychological, imagine the world without man. It would be 10°F, an arbitrarily selected figure, cooler (or 10³ warmer using the 1970's global cooling mantra). Even if the temperature remained unchanged, man is still the invasive specie in the universe. It casts man unique ability to reshape existence in the image of his values as an ominous shadow that is darkening the land.

Man builds a house. The house catches fire. He creates a fire department to address what can occasionally crop up.

Man builds automobiles. Accidents occasionally happen. Man develops medical procedures which save lives.

Man builds industries. He raises the standard of living on the face of the globe to unprecedented levels. If the government, which incidentally is another man-made institution, doesn't choke off man's ability to reshape nature—why wouldn't he continue to come up with measures in industry further raising the standard of living?

 

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

I don't think Nicky is asking for omniscience, just for evidence.

He is demanding omniscience:

7 hours ago, Nicky said:

Disproving the claim would certainly be possible...because all you need for that is evidence of one instance of similar warming. But proving it right would be pretty much impossible. You would need evidence of temperature or CO2 concentration changes for all (or at least most) 50 year periods in history.

A man walks into a doctor's office. Doctor Nicky says, "Do you have any allergies?" The man says, "No, sir, I do not." Doctor Nicky returns, "Disproving your claim would certainly be possible...because all we need is one instance of an allergic reaction. But proving it right would be pretty much impossible. You would need evidence of a lack of reaction against every possible allergen." This is a call for omniscience, without which one is not entitled to say (for instance) "I do not have allergies."

If the man, showing a patience that Doctor Nicky probably does not deserve, replies, "Well, when I said that 'I do not have allergies,' what I meant was, so far as I know," what he can expect in reply is something like: "it is absurd to make an arbitrary claim, add 'so far as we know' to it, and pretend it's not a lie, now that there's a disclaimer at the end of it." Perhaps he would also make an allusion to child molestation, which seems to be a subject of particular fascination for Nicky.

But then, Nicky (fictional doctor or otherwise) is a troll and a shallow thinker, and probably should not be taken seriously in any case. I only hold my nose in responding to his claims to demonstrate that, yes, he is calling for omniscience as the standard of knowledge in this case, presumably because he does not like what the people with actual knowledge (i.e. scientists) have to say in the present matter.

3 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

Anyhow, for my part, I'm the eternal optimist that humans will figure out all sorts of stuff. I would not be surprised if some scientist, some day, can figure out the average temperature of every year in history, within a range of error than is useful.

I'm sure that humans will figure out all sorts of stuff, and if that makes for an optimist, then I would count myself one as well.

When we get into specifics, however, then perhaps I reveal a bit more pessimism on a case-by-case basis. For instance: there is a ton of human activity in the past which was not recorded. Our methods of discovery have doubtless improved over the years and will continue to do so, yet I do not expect that we will ever have a "complete picture" of the past.

If a historian were inspired to say something like, "Democracy first arose in Athens," (leaving alone for a moment whether this reflects our current understanding), the unwritten/unspoken addendum to this would be: "...so far as we know, so far as the current record suggests." If we were to disqualify such a claim on the basis that we do not know how every human society in the past has organized itself (which we do not, and -- perhaps speaking pessimistically -- we never will), then applying a similar standard to other positive claims we would quickly run up against a general skepticism, and not say much.

Now, I'm speaking to the historical record, which is somewhat more familiar to me than climate science. I trust that a climate scientist (or even a scientist of any stripe) would better be able to speak to the feasibility of figuring out the average temperature of every year in history, though maybe you would be optimist enough to discount any suggested limit on such a thing, even from a studied and knowledgeable source... and maybe, too, you believe that one day we will somehow know how every single human society was organized throughout all of history, or "would not be surprised" if that were the case.

But the real question, and so far as I can tell the dispute between us, is whether today, with the knowledge we have today, we can make any sort of claim about the present world or the future. Because today we do have some knowledge about the past. And yes, it's true, it's incomplete. And yes, it's true, there is a range of error involved with the measurements we've made and the data we've collected. Yet those people who work in the field, and who have dedicated their lives to its study, seem to believe that what we know today is useful for the purpose(s) of comparison and evaluation and projection.

I recognize that what I've referred elsewhere to as a "consensus" is not necessarily "unanimous." Perhaps scientists do not all agree between themselves about the specifics of global warming theory, or what the data suggests, or upon the very reliability of that data. Not being a scientist, I would struggle to pick and choose between their arguments. Maybe there is even good reason for rejecting a particular scientific theory, even if embraced by a majority, or a unanimity. But the idea that we must do other than rely upon what we know about the past for the purpose of understanding the present or projecting into the future, in climate science or any other discipline, because our understanding of the past is not yet complete, I reject on principle as a variety of skepticism which does not enhance knowledge, but makes it practically impossible.

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

The question, on global warming (or global cooling as it was deemed in the 70's), masks under a veneer of science that man is the unnatural element in the equation.

Whatever else underlies global warming, my interest in this discussion (and more generally) remains the "veneer of science," because even if every scientist working in the field today is a horrible Kantian, a would-be Genghis Khan, that doesn't necessarily make their science wrong.

If the science behind global warming is largely correct, yet men of reason reject accepting it (which I consider a distinct possibility, at this point of my investigation), then that is yet another question, another important aspect, worthy of further examination. It might even be more important than global warming itself.

[dream_weaver]

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Whatever else underlies global warming, my interest in this discussion (and more generally) remains the "veneer of science," because even if every scientist working in the field today is a horrible Kantian, a would-be Genghis Khan, that doesn't necessarily make their science wrong.

If the science behind global warming is largely correct, yet men of reason reject accepting it (which I consider a distinct possibility, at this point of my investigation), then that is yet another question, another important aspect, worthy of further examination. It might even be more important than global warming itself.

Less like Genghis Khan, more like dressing up some corpses in Polish military uniforms to give the impression that something other than what had occurred, happened. (Less Atilla-like, more nihilistic.)

Consider the discovery of e-mails in 2009, and latter in 2011 dubbed Climategate and Climategete 2.0. Are these the kind of things that men of reason should consider worthy of further examination to bolster that the science behind global warming is largely correct?

Edited October 8, 2016 by dream_weaver

[softwareNerd]

4 hours ago, DonAthos said:

... the idea that we must do other than rely upon what we know about the past for the purpose of understanding the present or projecting into the future, in climate science or any other discipline, because our understanding of the past is not yet complete, I reject on principle as a variety of skepticism which does not enhance knowledge, but makes it practically impossible.

As far as I'm concerned this a strawman; so, perhaps you're looking for a reply from Nicky.

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Consider the discovery of e-mails in 2009, and latter in 2011 dubbed Climategate and Climategete 2.0. Are these the kind of things that men of reason should consider worthy of further examination to bolster that the science behind global warming is largely correct?

I'm certain that it all needs to be weighed and taken into consideration. It seems unlikely to me that the emails you refer to have the power to overthrow an entire theory of global warming, developed over decades by thousands of scientists, but we also have to be on notice about the political (or personal) motives that can sway the actions of individual scientists (and, really, advocates on either side of any issue). Neither side is apt to be an undifferentiated lot of either heroes or villains.

I think that a man of reason should look to separate the wheat from the chaff in this, as in all other matters.

59 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

As far as I'm concerned this a strawman; so, perhaps you're looking for a reply from Nicky.

It had seemed for a moment that you had taken up for Nicky? You suggested that he wasn't relying upon a standard of omniscience, and then I took pains to demonstrate otherwise. Perhaps you understand the distinctions between your position (whatever it is) and his, but to me it all does kind of dissolve into a haze of anti-science skepticism (not that I think you're "anti-science" generally, but there may be a particular compartmentalization on this topic).

If my representation of your position, either stated directly or reflected implicitly by my response to it, strikes you as a "strawman," so be it: you can always clarify your thoughts, if you think it necessary... but I'll stand by what I've written until I see some good reason to do otherwise.

Finally, almost the last thing in the world I'm looking for is a reply from Nicky. It ranks slightly above genital warts.

[dream_weaver]

54 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

I'm certain that it all needs to be weighed and taken into consideration. It seems unlikely to me that the emails you refer to have the power to overthrow an entire theory of global warming, developed over decades by thousands of scientists, but we also have to be on notice about the political (or personal) motives that can sway the actions of individual scientists (and, really, advocates on either side of any issue). Neither side is apt to be an undifferentiated lot of either heroes or villains.

I think that a man of reason should look to separate the wheat from the chaff in this, as in all other matters.

I'm not trying to overthrow the hypothesis of global warming. After 40+ years of hearing the scaremongering, I'm of the mind that it is more about commandeering the political machinery than of discovering if a scientific solution is actually required. I don't think the problem and solution are likely to be discovered and forthcoming from the special sciences.

[Nicky]

18 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

We may not be able to know that historical data today, but someone might figure out a way to know it. DonAthos was asking about the knowable, rather than the known.

I understand that. But, while everything about the present is knowable, that's not necessarily true for the past. The past is gone, it doesn't exist anymore, and we have no reason to believe that all past events have left a trace.

It is possible that some past events are simply unknowable...and a quick, one degree average warming 100,000 years ago is a strong candidate for that.

[Nicky]

10 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

As far as I'm concerned this a strawman; so, perhaps you're looking for a reply from Nicky.

I can't reply to 80 word sentences that don't seem to have any connection to anything I said, sorry. The idea that I must do anything other than ignore his nonsense, because his vocabulary and even his sentence composition are infuriatingly pretentious and mentally draining to try and sift through, I reject on principle as practically impossible, and I commend you for being, in spirit and mind, superior to yours truly, as evidenced by getting this far in reading the present caricature of the afore alluded to but left unmentioned gentleman's manner of putting his rambling thoughts to figurative paper.

But I understand your posts. So if you think there's anything wrong with what I said before, feel free to point it out. I'll be happy to reply to that.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Nicky

[DonAthos]

13 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I'm not trying to overthrow the hypothesis of global warming. After 40+ years of hearing the scaremongering, I'm of the mind that it is more about commandeering the political machinery than of discovering if a scientific solution is actually required. I don't think the problem and solution are likely to be discovered and forthcoming from the special sciences.

I'm not a fan of scaremongering either, and I'm certain that there are political machinations at play on both sides (there always are). But if there is a problem related to climatology, then I would expect both the discovery of the problem and (hopefully) a solution from those folks who specialize in studying it.

6 hours ago, Nicky said:

I can't reply to 80 word sentences that don't seem to have any connection to anything I said, sorry.

This sort of anti-intellectualism is par for the course. It fits right in with the rejection of science, and I can only imagine how "mentally draining" it must be to have to try to sift through technical material and argument. It's no wonder that anti-science conspiracy theories play well to such a crowd: tinfoil hats is something a guy like Nicky can understand.

[softwareNerd]

It's a cartoonist vs. cartoonist argument now, with Dilbert's creator taking the other side. Goodness! Whim should we believe when the Titans disagree. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155073242136/the-climate-science-challenge