Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged: How To Support Simberg and CEI Against Michael Mann

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Do you mean "why, just because the science points to us triggering a new 'hot age', different than what we've seen before, is anybody talking further about it?'

Well you could start by describing what you mean by worldview, and perhaps your insights and opinions as to what you think mine is.

I read the study you linked to in post #20 and I am not sure what to make of it, or your reference to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is one specialist's explanation of the issue, in a nutshell. The first half of it seems to represent the broad consensus as I understand it, but the second half deserves scrutiny. He described climate sensitivity in terms of comparability to glacial/interglacial differences. That's about 10 degrees Celsius, right?

 

*5*.

 

So what does comparable mean? Orders of magnitude don't strike me as comparable, so I would think 1.5 is about as low as you could get and still be comparable. This isn't anything controversial unless he means that he expects a 10 degree (or more) increase per doubling of CO2. The last sentence is where I think the "consensus opinion" is overextended, and he acknowledges as much later in the article. He also explicitly states that the costs and the behavior those costs imply are outside of the scope of his definition. As far as I can tell this is just a more detailed restatement of the one I gave, with the exception that he doesn't mention the human contribution at all. So I'll reiterate; you're imagining disagreement where there is none.

 

Here you're misunderstanding what the numbers mean and comparing apples to oranges, although the confusion is understandable. ECS refers to "degrees warming per doubling of CO2". At ECS = 1 (no net feedback effects), warming would be about 1.1 deg C for a doubling of CO2. (For those interested in physics and math, this is a great site/web series that walks through the basic calculations of enhanced CO2 effect and derives the common 1.1 figure.) IPCC's RCP 8.5 (the highest emission scenario, where we just OK the pipelines and unleash the market to go after all remaining fossil fuel sources with enhanced technology throughout the century, essentially our current path) projects CO2 concentration reaching 936 ppm. Very rough math at ECS 1.5 temperatures would be 1.9 degrees warming above where we are today (one doubling and 16% of another) by 2100. This is absolutely considered very high impact / catastrophic warming. Roughly 3 degrees total warming in the modern industrial era since 1880, while not the ice age order of 5 degrees by 2100 we would be getting close and still warming.

 

The Eemian (previous interglacial 120K years ago) was thought to be just a degree or two warmer, and sea level was about 4 to 6 meters higher. Do you have an idea what the order of economic cost is for that kind of sea level rise, the magnitude of human populations and cities impacted?

 

We see significant acceleration of ice melt from the land already today, with the IPCC reporting a *5x* increase in measured melt: "The average rate of ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet has likely increased from 30 [–37 to 97] Gt yr–1 over the period 1992–2001 to 147 [72 to 221] Gt yr–1 over the period 2002 to 2011" (though this is not high confidence/precision because the satellite gravimetric analysis is relatively immature – relevant papers for anyone interested here, here, here.)

 

At the other end, ECS = 4.5, it's 5.7 degrees warming by 2100. This isn't "high impact", it's "sweet mother of God". It is literally, very probably, game over for human civilization as we know it, well underway by 2100. You are so comfortable with the 1.5 possibility these are the stakes you blithely let ride on your dice roll. And what are you gambling for? The IPCC impact report gives the best estimate of economic cost of mitigation is reducing the median annual growth of consumption over this century by 0.06%. It is a complete false economy to imagine this makes remote economic sense even in the 1.5 scenario. In fact it is so far from any form of rational cost/benefit analysis it defies description. In business, your colleagues would consider you not laughable but dangerously insane. Only because we are talking about the world (merely human suffering and economies) are you able to step back and apply an ideological filter, that says there are exceptional philosophical obstacles to taking any action like this, enabling you to back additional demands of "certainty" into the physical science on an a priori basis to satisfy your ideological preferences.

 

You offered a couple of quotes to illustrate where you think climate science is at odds with my definition. ... The first is completely in line with my definition. I might also agree with the second statement, depending on definitions for climate changemajor influence and societal response. You're reading something into them that isn't there.

 

Well it is academically interesting to watch you try to square this. You are simply in (textbook psychological) denial of what the mainstream consensus is saying. The NAS can state "climate change is one of the defining issues of our time" and you think that squares with your "cool it, it's no big deal let's see if we learn anything" approach. 

 

Let's select a more explicit statement, this time from the European Federation of Geologists:

"The EFG subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization."
 
I wonder if I am reading concern into this, when none really exists? You really should spend some time with the actual impacts report, with articles like this and this.
 

I'm not too concerned with the arctic Ice; antarctic ice is far more important because it tends not to displace as much water.

 

Oh, for crying out loud, you don't sound familiar with the topic. For sea ice (which is different from land ice), just compare the arctic/antarctic changes visually in animations like these.

 

 

In short, I say, "Cool it. consensus science doesn't really know if ECS is low or high, and a wide range of scenarios are possible. Let's wait for more evidence and see where our understanding takes us."

You say, "You're only looking at the good stuff; you shouldn't do that. You should only look at the bad stuff. #Kochmachine."

 

It's actually chilling to hear this sort of intense irrationality so calmly conveyed.

 

I realize speaking bluntly about this sort of logic probably comes across (to you) as strident, alarmist, and “impolite”, but really the stakes are unbelievably high (both on the specific question of global warming, and the general question of the rejection of rational scientific epistemology in a world where it is increasingly not just a luxury but a survival requirement.)

 
Your standards of epistemology massively overweight selective uncertainty (and paranoia) relative to the approach of rational, conservative scientific epistemology, one of the many reasons I think it is defensible to characterize the position as anti-science. It’s great you reject creationism, but I think you fail to see the similarity of the trap. One can easily reject much of modern scientific understanding of the planet – evolution, the age of the earth, understanding of cosmology etc. – by demanding “certainty” and “proof” in the way commonly done here, resisting mainstream understanding of the planet and history.
 
Quote from another forum today: “Climate denial isn't really about intelligence, anyway. Being intelligent often just means that you can concoct more elaborate rationalizations as to why your preconceived notions are correct.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I typed faster than I reasoned on that last one (between flights) and made a muddied comment about ECS of 1 implying 1.1 warming which is nonsensical, the ECS figure is absolute degrees, my apologies. Overenthusiastic about injecting the physics logic behind the unmodified CO2 contribution to ground the conversation. Correcting the representative napkin math (taking out the 1.1) you get 1.74 and 5.22 warming by 2100, which doesn't change the commentary, but does provide the requisite opening to argue I don't know what I'm talking about. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to be generous to your position when offering 10. The outer bounds of some of the temperature data I've seen is even larger than this. But averages are closer to five, and if you want to use that, then I've got no problem with it. I'm not sure why you thought an explanation of ECS was warranted. I don't see anything I've written that contradicts what you wrote below, or anything contradicting the info on arctic ice to which you linked. Perhaps you could quote something of mine that is at odds with your explanation? Otherwise it seems like you're wasting quite a bit of energy with long-winded explanations where none are needed.

 

Let me be clear that my purpose was to define the consensus science regarding climate change. When a scientific organization sees fit to issue a public statement on the matter, I take them at their word. That means that if they choose to omit cost and impact estimates, I trust that they do so because they don't feel confident enough in the science or economics to say one way or the other. You, however, are reading far more into that consensus than their statements warrant. The statements you quoted are very much in line with the IPCC's working group 1. But you're trying to paint a picture that blurs the lines between the science of working group 1, which seems to be widely accepted, and the conclusions of working groups 2 and 3. These sections are where I believe the IPCC needs a reality check; I say this only partly because no human institution has yet proved itself capable of such precise predictions about economic impacts. But also because my own folksy, pedestrian ideologically-driven common sense tells me that the best way to keep humans safe is by exploiting cheap energy rather than as-yet unproven energy sources. And also because a 5.7 degree increase by 2100 would be truly unprecidented. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if the CMIP5 models on which the assumptions of WGs 2&3 are based are disproved in 10 or 20 years, we've flushed a lot of time, money and lives down the shitter for nothing. 

​Anyway, you are right about how your speech affects me. Specifically with regards to your accusation of paranoia. Where are you getting this junk?

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Various organizations (mostly news organizations, but also the ACLU) have now filed an amici curiae brief, against Mann's attempt to have the court declare Steyn's criticism as illegal. 

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...