Reblogged: How To Support Simberg and CEI Against Michael Mann

[New Buddha]

Perhaps, depending on your definition (just not mine). I perceived a conflict with my strident pro-science and pro-reason views at the time (see above  ). A philosophy that proclaims an a priori bias in favor of the way things have been seemed inherently incompatible to me. (As would a philosophy of "change is always better".)

Since you are sticking around and engaging in an extended conversation, I'll try and throttle any sarcasm that rears it's ugly head.

 

Your use of the term "a priori" leads me to believe that you truly have no real understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism, since Objectivist reject any notion that knowledge is "a priori".  Simillarly it doesn't make much sense that you perceived your "pro-science" and "pro-reason" stance to be in conflict with Objectivism.  I mean, you do realize that the hero's in Rand fictional novels were, almost uniformly, inventors, engineers and scientist - and that Objectivism formally endorses atheism?  Also Rand roughly traces her philosophical roots back through Aquinas and Aristotle - and that it was precisely her advocacy of Reason that caused Objectivism to be rejected by the main-stream logical positivists that dominated the Universities during her time.  And to just touch briefly on the "conservative" issue.  Typically Objectivist are accused of being borderline anarchist - so it's slightly amusing that you would see us "conservative".  If you hang around this blog long enough you'll see that the biggest pissing matches are Objectivist vs. Libertarian vs. Minarchist vs. Anarchist, etc.  About the only people who accuse Objectivist of being conservative are Anarchist.

 

I'd like to also address in another post why it appears that the stance on AGW seems to fall along "party lines".  It does do so, but not for the reasons that you and most others might think.

[Nicky]

I'd like to also address in another post why it appears that the stance on AGW seems to fall along "party lines".  It does do so, but not for the reasons that you and most others might think.

The reason why Democrats and moderate Republicans support political action to "prevent" global warming is because they follow the "precautionary principle" (explained in this article: http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de ).

Among all of the irrational, anti-scientific ideas floating around today, that principle is by far the most devastating to western economies. It is the cause of not just GW related regulations, but of the majority of destructive government initiatives.

[waxliberty]

What other scientific consensus has called for , or shows the need for political action on such a scale?

If AGW proves true, what then?

 

Sure, none (events like "lead is an environmental toxin" or "cigarettes cause cancer" or "species extinction is a problem" hopelessly smaller in scale to date... of course controversial in their own right). In terms of world view, it is a significant milepost on the way from earth as "boundless resources we can craft into anything the mind can conceive!" to something more like "flying terrarium in space where we literally have to watch the damn pH balance". It's not the most fantastic news ever delivered.

 

There has been more published research and articles on impacts and mitigation scenarios in recent years. The latest IPCC is intended to summarize, the recent AR5 report on impacts is here, and on mitigation approaches here. Mitigation scenarios include use of renewables (wind/hydro/solar), nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration, shifts from coal to natural gas. Some familiar discussion of reducing subsidies for GHG-related activities, cap and trade and carbon tax schemes to price in costs. Underscores false economy of delaying action. The macroeconomic summary statement that has been publicized and criticized: "Under these assumptions, mitigation scenarios that reach atmospheric concentrations of about 450ppm CO2eq by 2100 entail losses in global consumption—not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as co‐ benefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation19—of 1% to 4% (median: 1.7%) in 2030, 2% to 6% (median: 3.4%) in 2050, and 3% to 11% (median: 4.8%) in 2100 relative to consumption in baseline scenarios that grows anywhere from 300% to more than 900% over the century. These numbers correspond to an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year".

[waxliberty]

Your use of the term "a priori" leads me to believe that you truly have no real understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism, since Objectivist reject any notion that knowledge is "a priori".  

 

I think it is safe to say that I am not well informed on the philosophy of Objectivism, and do not imagine it otherwise. I did state that I have not detected a practical difference between it and straight conservatism on policy issues or in engagement with debates involving science such as this, based on discussions with self-professed adherents over the years and exposure to the discussion and threads here, which is not a particularly deep comment. I was intending to state only that I am interested in the intersection of Objectivism with a problem like global warming driven by scientific findings which seemingly contradict associated ideological views, where in my opinion ideology tends to "win" very quickly; not that I have any robust understanding of how Objectivism does or should respond.

[Nicky]

Sure, none (events like "lead is an environmental toxin" or "cigarettes cause cancer" or "species extinction is a problem" hopelessly smaller in scale to date... of course controversial in their own right). In terms of world view, it is a significant milepost on the way from earth as "boundless resources we can craft into anything the mind can conceive!" to something more like "flying terrarium in space where we literally have to watch the damn pH balance". It's not the most fantastic news ever delivered.

That's not "news" at all. It's science fiction crafted into religious dogma, and it defies reality the same way virgin births, ressurrections, reincarnation, immortal aliens etc., etc. do.

[waxliberty]

The reason why Democrats and moderate Republicans support political action to "prevent" global warming is because they follow the "precautionary principle" (explained in this article: http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de ).

Among all of the irrational, anti-scientific ideas floating around today, that principle is by far the most devastating to western economies. It is the cause of not just GW related regulations, but of the majority of destructive government initiatives.

 

I think the idea promoted is more akin to "rational risk assessment". We are a long way away from "precautionary" behavior; behaving in a cautious way is not an option. The far more dominant cognitive bias is simply assuming that significant (even literally catastrophic) risk does not actually exist. We are currently more in the vein of stating "well, the message from the aeronautical experts is clear, they don't think this plane is going to make the flight, however there is some uncertainty around just how many miles it might make it before any engine failure or fire, and a couple of folks argue it actually might make it the whole way, therefore given the uncertainty there is clearly no reason to delay our vacation to Hawaii – load up the children everyone!"

[Nicky]

I think the idea promoted is more akin to "rational risk assessment". We are a long way away from "precautionary" behavior; behaving in a cautious way is not an option. The far more dominant cognitive bias is simply assuming that significant (even literally catastrophic) risk does not actually exist. We are currently more in the vein of stating "well, the message from the aeronautical experts is clear, they don't think this plane is going to make the flight, however there is some uncertainty around just how many miles it might make it before any engine failure or fire, and a couple of folks argue it actually might make it the whole way, therefore given the uncertainty there is clearly no reason to delay our vacation to Hawaii – load up the children everyone!"

What does that mean? We're all gonna die of global warming? Is that what you're getting at?

[waxliberty]

That's not "news" at all. It's science fiction crafted into religious dogma, and it defies reality the same way virgin births, ressurrections, reincarnation, immortal aliens etc., etc. do.

 

Counter the science, then. Simplly asserting it is all just religion and there is no rational basis is incredibly uncompelling logically. Why won't CO2 absorb infrared? You can observe in any lab you like. Why won't increasing CO2 in atmosphere trap energy on a global level? We directly observe that changes in outgoing longwave matching predicted changes via dedicated satellites. Why won't trapped heat warm the climate? First law of thermodynamics says it will. Why won't warmer air hold more water? Humidity monitoring confirms it is. And so on, a highly validated chain of science and logic that has been developed for over a century, across disciplines and countries.

 

Scientific epistemology is actually a significantly different method for building understanding of the world than religious dogma, although its critics frequently assert that it is equivalent. Drawing conclusions from understanding of radiative physics may seem the very height of religious fanatacism to you, but be careful that you don't accidentally use such physics while operating your computer and connecting to the internet to say so, as that could be unintentionally ironic.

Edited May 3, 2014 by waxliberty

[waxliberty]

O.o

 

Nothing about Objectivism proclaims an a priori bias, or a priori anything.

 

Jeez, well I've been a gigantic KJ fan forever, so will humbly accept your correction without comment.

[Nicky]

Counter the science, then. Simplly asserting it is all just religion and there is no rational basis is incredibly uncompelling logically. Why won't CO2 absorb infrared? You can observe in any lab you like.

I know.

Why won't increasing CO2 in atmosphere trap energy on a global level?

It will, to some extent.

We directly observe that changes in outgoing longwave matching predicted changes via dedicated satellites. Why won't trapped heat warm the climate? First law of thermodynamics says it will.

It will, I agree.

Why won't warmer air hold more water? Humidity monitoring confirms it is.

Indeed it does.

But none of this means much, since, as is usual with GW alarmists, you never bother being specific. It's always the most shallow, least exact of facts with people like you. You make sure to always be vague enough that your statements mean absolutely nothing.

 

And so on, a highly validated chain of science and logic that has been developed for over a century, across disciplines and countries.

And this is where science fiction and religious dogma come in. At "and so on", NY is gonna be under 50 feet of water, and we're all gonna die. Why? Because "and so on" and "I said so".

 

Scientific epistemology is actually a significantly different method for building understanding of the world than religious dogma

I know. That's how I know that what you're peddling isn't science, it's religious dogma. From that quantum leap you just made between "CO2 traps energy" and "we're all gonna die". That's indeed where religion and science differ. A scientist wouldn't have made that leap, he would've been content to stick with the facts.

Drawing conclusions from understanding of radiative physics may seem the very height of religious fanatacism to you.

It doesn't. Your mindless rhetoric on the other hand, built on pretty much one thin fact of reality (that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation), does more than just "seem like" religious fanaticism to me. It clearly is. You VERY, VERY clearly haven't established a logical connection between the physical phenomenon of CO2 absorbing radiation and the doom and gloom scenarios you're peddling.

while operating your computer and connecting to the internet to say so, as that could be unintentionally ironic.

It's not. I'm perfectly aware of both the guiding principles behind the Internet, and those behind GW alarmism. They are nothing alike.

Everything about GW alarmism (the way it was formulated, the way it's argued, the way it's taught in school, the way it's funded, what motivates its proponents, how its proponents behave when faced with criticism) is analogous to religious movements, and the polar opposite of science.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Nicky

[waxliberty]

What does that mean? We're all gonna die of global warming? Is that what you're getting at?

 

I linked to the AR5 impact paper above, you can read the outline of what the concerns are, and on what timeframe, and with what basis in research.

 

To understand the overall context, it's important to emphasize just how major a change in climate we are talking about, a shift to a different mode (equilibrium state) for the planet as a whole, and a transformation of the climate away from the state that human civilization grew up in. The difference between ice age (glacial) and not ice age conditions is about 5 degrees C global average surface temp. We've warmed 1 so far (from the lowest temperatures of the Holocene to the warmest in a geologic eyeblink) and project 2-3 more by 2100, so comparable to that kind of "ice age" scale shift, only this time in unprecedented (for us) warming direction. During the ice age, the physical differences driven by this degree of change included the likes of mile-thick slabs of ice over New York. So we get to project what that kind of change in the opposite direction looks like, fueled by awareness that ice melt is a "wetter" processes that can happen faster than the time it takes to grow glaciers to that size (the record shows periods where 1m sea level rise every two decades is normal, and the anthropogenic forcing is sharper than the far slower/softer orbital-type forcings that drive past climate shifts per prevailing theory). Temperature zones are already estimated to be shifting about 4 feet a day which is what ecosystems have to keep up with. The paleoclimate record is clear that rapid changes of this scale are a big deal for all kinds of systems. You can read the impact report for more discussion of the risks scoped to coming decades.

 

You are welcome to believe such risks don't exist, I just don't believe you have a rational basis for that bias and assumption.

[Nicky]

I linked to the AR5 impact paper above, you can read the outline of what the concerns are, and on what timeframe, and with what basis in research.

 

To understand the overall context, it's important to emphasize just how major a change in climate we are talking about, a shift to a different mode (equilibrium state) for the planet as a whole, and a transformation of the climate away from the state that human civilization grew up in. The difference between ice age (glacial) and not ice age conditions is about 5 degrees C global average surface temp. We've warmed 1 so far (from the lowest temperatures of the Holocene to the warmest in a geologic eyeblink) and project 2-3 more by 2100, so comparable to that kind of "ice age" scale shift, only this time in unprecedented (for us) warming direction. During the ice age, the physical differences driven by this degree of change included the likes of mile-thick slabs of ice over New York. So we get to project what that kind of change in the opposite direction looks like, fueled by awareness that ice melt is a "wetter" processes that can happen faster than the time it takes to grow glaciers to that size (the record shows periods where 1m sea level rise every two decades is normal, and the anthropogenic forcing is sharper than the far slower/softer orbital-type forcings that drive past climate shifts per prevailing theory). Temperature zones are already estimated to be shifting about 4 feet a day which is what ecosystems have to keep up with. The paleoclimate record is clear that rapid changes of this scale are a big deal for all kinds of systems. You can read the impact report for more discussion of the risks scoped to coming decades.

 

You are welcome to believe such risks don't exist, I just don't believe you have a rational basis for that bias and assumption.

Those are all arbitrary statements. You still haven't made, or even so much as attempted to make, any kind of logical connection between industrial emmissions and a 3 degree rise in global temperatures. You just asserted that that's what's gonna happen.

And no, I'm not gonna read through a 40 page paper, just because you decided that my only options are to waste my time reading through random stuff you link to (and probably haven't even read yourself) and being anti-science.

You're welcome to argue your case right here, if you have any arguments. So far, you haven't. Anything you're willing to type out using your own words, I'm willing to read. Copy/paste jobs and links, not so much. That's only fair.

We've warmed 1 so far (from the lowest temperatures of the Holocene to the warmest in a geologic eyeblink)

Yes, that's true (roughly, it's obviously not exactly 1 degree).

However, the implication that this means industrial emmissions have caused the Earth's temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius, isn't even close to true. Clearly. Such an conclusion would rest on the obviously false assumption that normally, the lowest and highest temperature over 11,700 years is the same.

So, what you're actually saying is that less than 1 degree is attributable to emmissions. But of couse you're not saying how much less, because that would bring you dangerously close to science. And religion and science don't mix well.

and project 2-3 more by 2100

Again, vagueries. Who is projecting that?

The IPCC certainly isn't. The IPCC is projecting between 1.1 and 6.4: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The EPA isn't. It is projecting between about 3 and about 7 (they don't bother with actual numbers just a graph with some vaguely drawn red lines on it - because, of course, the line has to be red; nothing's more scientific than big red lines to illustrate the danger). http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

(as an aside, adding "more" betrays your intention to pass off the previous 1 degree as actual warming, rather than what it is: some warming and some natural fluctuation added together).

Edited May 3, 2014 by Nicky

[New Buddha]

I'll try and keep this brief, but below is an outline of how I came to rejection the notion of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Until climategate I believed AGW was real. In my business (Architecture) I have a great deal to gain if cap and trade limits are set. Buildings that need to be designed with a zero-carbon footprint are expensive, and typically fees are based on a percentage of construction costs. (Architects really cleaned up on ADA legislation).

 

However with the release of the climategate emails, I very innocently began looking into the matter. Here's a brief outline of what lead me to change my mind:

 

• The historical temperature data upon which the models are built is of horrible quality. No engineering or medical professional would ever be allowed to use data of such poor quality.
• The observational error of the instrumentation actually exceeds the claimed global temperature anomaly observed in the last 150 years.
• The degree of claimed precision exceeds that of the instrumentation.
• The data is routinely “adjusted” or “homogenized” in an attempt to try and account for urban encroachment, time of date observation changes, station relocation, instrumentation changes, etc. YOU CANNOT DO THIS. No other profession is allowed to change data. Could you imagine engineers or doctors changing data? Not only would they loose their license and professional liability insurance but they could be held criminally accountable as well.
• In addition to changing data, DATA IS MADE UP. Since there is no blanket, global instrumentation coverage of the planet, the only way that you can reach an averaged global temperature anomaly is through extrapolation or “gridding” the data. And once again, no other profession would EVER be allowed to do this.
• The whole notion of trying to create a global temperature anomaly set against an arbitrarily established base line is both misleading and meaningless.
• Historical temperature “data” is not “data” because it cannot be replicated. When a structural engineer designs a building, he does so based on data which can be replicated by any laboratory in the world. The strengths of materials and the validation of models is determined by empirical tests. Both the fabrication of materials and the validation of the models follow very carefully prescribed and transparent industry standards that are well documented. None of this happens in climate science because because the climate itself cannot be modeled.
• What climate science calls a “model” is unique to the climate science profession.
• And I don't even  want to get going on proxy data....

[waxliberty]

Everything about GW alarmism (the way it was formulated, the way it's argued, the way it's taught in school, the way it's funded, what motivates its proponents, how its proponents behave when faced with criticism) is analogous to religious movements, and the polar opposite of science.

 

I don't know how you can not see all this as just demonstrating the claim, you perceive a world view threat, react with attacks and misrepresentations (implicitly, attacks on the trustworthiness of scientists involved, "it's a cult!"), already it's straw men and "give me a short summary in a blog comment that proves CO2 causes doom and gloom or admit it is propaganda!" etc. A rather direct analog is "point me to a bone I can dig up right now to prove evolution or admit it's propaganda!"

 

Alright. We'll put that aside and just assume you asked for more elaboration from where I left off, per:

 

 

Those are all arbitrary statements. You still haven't made, or even so much as attempted to make, any kind of logical connection between industrial emmissions and a 3 degree rise in global temperatures. You just asserted that that's what's gonna happen.

 

So, you agree on the first basic steps of CO2 increase and absorption, that's great, plenty jump off the wagon there. The conceptual model that connects the GHG increase to predictions of heat gain in the system over time (global warming) is straightforward, at a high level. It's based on conservation of energy, and modeling the planet as big rock in space covered with a fluid "envelope" that can hold various amounts of heat. A critical insight is to note (and validate) that you can only meaningfully create or destroy heat in this system via radiation to/from space. There are two main parts:

 

(1) Assessing all of the variables having to do with incoming and outgoing radiation ("forcings"). Physics of radiation here. The variables include incoming raw solar energy (flux) and all things which modify it, i.e. the planet's reflectiveness (albedo)/absorptivity, and then the outgoing longwave radiation (earth's "blackbody" radiation yielded by the Stefan-Boltzmann law) and all things which modify that, namely the greenhouse chemistry of the atmosphere. Calculations of the solar energy hitting the planet and of the outgoing longwave radiation are straightforward (Fourier roughed out these calculations in order to deduce the existence of the greenhouse effect in 1824.) With modern instruments we now observe the greenhouse effect directly (bites coming out of radiation as seen from satellites, extra spikes coming back down as seen from the ground.) The major variable measured least effectively is the albedo effect of aerosols, so modeled error ranges are larger. From this, you can look at the balance of incoming/outgoing energy and deduce a magnitude of heat accumulation (warming) in watts per square meter (a forcing).

 

(2) Assessing "feedbacks" – more complexity enters here (which of course exists in spades in general). You need to model what happens when the climate starts to absorb heat and whether this in turn starts changing any of those key variables in (1). Turns out it does. A response to warming which causes yet more warming is referred to as a positive feedback, notably including water vapor (warmer air holds more water vapor, the chief greenhouse gas) and ice cover (more warming drives drop in albedo and more absorbed solar). Critically, we start with a useful framing and reference point here – using the variables understood in (1), we can investigate paleoclimate in as much detail as possible, reconstruct what atmospheric chemistry looked like (directly sampling air bubbles trapped in ice), what temperature and ice cover looked like, and model how these key variables changed over time, thereby observing how the climate responded to forcings and deducing the total magnitude of built-in feedbacks. This yields a measurement of "climate sensitivity" of roughly 3 degrees warming total as a result of an initial doubling of the quantity of CO2. The strong thing here is that this sort of calculation rolls in all of the possible climate feedbacks, from water vapor to clouds to ice cover and any we haven't identified.

 

In parallel there is lots of research looking to tally and quantify the specific feedbacks directly and empirically observe responses in modern times. The sum of all this looking at many different lines of evidence has produced a range of estimates from 1.5 to 4.5 "warming per doubling" for awhile now, which is the offiical IPCC sensitivity assessment. Meaning, still centered around that ~3 figure; that general range hasn't really moved for several decades now despite continual refinement of understanding (uncertainty disproportionately still tied up in clouds.)

 

So you put all that together with some assessment of thermal capacity and how the ocean and air will roughly balance heat storage between them (about 90+% in the ocean, with El Nino oscillations over time causing stochastic shifts one way or the other on decade time scales.) You rough calculate it out (as Hansen presciently and accurately did in 1981) or develop computer models that play it out, and end up with similar projections either way for the amount of warming, depending chiefly on human emissions and the sensitivity factors. The current mainstream overall estimate from the IPCC is 1.4 to 4.8 deg C by 2100 – that's using the less mitigated emission scenarios i.e. RCP6.0/8.5 since we are talking about the justification for mitigation, the "likely" (>66% likelihood) ranges. Yes I handwaved the middle-of-the-road "2-3" degrees in the prior post when outlining the overall picture, just giving a sense of the scale of the warming question... going down the middle here gives ~3 degrees as a placeholder for mean warming.)

 

 

However, the implication that this means industrial emmissions have caused the Earth's temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius, isn't even close to true. Clearly. Such an conclusion would rest on the obviously false assumption that normally, the lowest and highest temperature over 11,700 years is the same.

 

I don't understand the 11,700 years reference, but yes the ~1 degree to date is not all anthropogenic. The context of the comment was roughing out the scale of total warming and what that means about impact, the context was not attribution, so not a relevant detail in context. Solar has been flat or declining since the 50s, the modern bulk (and the warming happening from here) is all human-caused. The IPCC statement is "It is extremely likely [i.e. >95% likely] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

[New Buddha]

@wax

"The sum of all this looking at many different lines of evidence has produced a range of estimates from 1.5 to 4.5 "warming per doubling" for awhile now, which is the offiical IPCC sensitivity assessment."

 

The 1.5 to 4.5 increase that  that you are referring to is actually an increase to the global temperature anomaly, relative to a base line temperature, correct?  And not an absolute temperature change.  And you say that it's been the official IPCC estimate "for awhile now" - which is not actually the case at all.

 

From the 2007 AR4:

 

"It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantial higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.

 

And from the just released AR5:

 

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)¹⁶. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.

 

And they added the footnote:

"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."

 

 

 

And as an aside, even you have to admit that it's funny that for years climate skeptics were decrying that the 1998 el Nino spike was unduly inflating the perceived temperature increase, and now the alarmist are saying that the1998 el Nino spike unduly deflates the perceived temperature decline.

[waxliberty]

 

I'll try and keep this brief, but below is an outline of how I came to rejection the notion of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Until climategate I believed AGW was real.

[...]

• The historical temperature data upon which the models are built is of horrible quality. No engineering or medical professional would ever be allowed to use data of such poor quality.
• The observational error of the instrumentation actually exceeds the claimed global temperature anomaly observed in the last 150 years.
• The degree of claimed precision exceeds that of the instrumentation.
• The data is routinely “adjusted” or “homogenized” in an attempt to try and account for urban encroachment, time of date observation changes, station relocation, instrumentation changes, etc. YOU CANNOT DO THIS. No other profession is allowed to change data. Could you imagine engineers or doctors changing data? Not only would they loose their license and professional liability insurance but they could be held criminally accountable as well.
• In addition to changing data, DATA IS MADE UP. Since there is no blanket, global instrumentation coverage of the planet, the only way that you can reach an averaged global temperature anomaly is through extrapolation or “gridding” the data. And once again, no other profession would EVER be allowed to do this.
• The whole notion of trying to create a global temperature anomaly set against an arbitrarily established base line is both misleading and meaningless.
• Historical temperature “data” is not “data” because it cannot be replicated. When a structural engineer designs a building, he does so based on data which can be replicated by any laboratory in the world. The strengths of materials and the validation of models is determined by empirical tests. Both the fabrication of materials and the validation of the models follow very carefully prescribed and transparent industry standards that are well documented. None of this happens in climate science because because the climate itself cannot be modeled.
• What climate science calls a “model” is unique to the climate science profession.
• And I don't even  want to get going on proxy data....

 

 

Well, I think this is good anecdotal support for my thesis above – "until climategate I believed AGW was real". Once you were convinced (erroneously) that scientists had been caught red-handed falsifying data, you became more open (susceptible) to a variety of claims like these, correct? (Though the sweeping tone of your screed, broad blanket rejection of entire fields, without even attempting lip service to any grounding in specific or verifiable example, makes this look more like the typical ideological reactivity in general.)

 

What you list is mostly the earlier generation anti-science PR, back when it was all about denying the temperature record, trying to claim that the difficulty measuring "average surface temperature" precisely prevents and invalidates the concept of scientific discussion of global temperature. This line of attack has receded a bit for a variety of reasons, e.g. once the early errors in Spencer and Christy's satellite data set were worked out and it started looking like the rest of the temperature sets, the fact that the warming trend was consistently similar in rural and urban areas regardless of urban heat effect, and also big projects like the Berkeley Earth Surface Temeprature re-analysis. That's the one that was funded by the Koch Foundation among others and was aimed at fully documenting exactly these allegations, "addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias." It of course re-confirmed all the earlier analyses including those by NASA, NOAA etc.

 

Naturally a rational person would also use other heuristics here, like wondering if this area of science was truly riddled through with such a calamitous degree of incompetence, so far below the professional standards of "other fields of science", would the National Academy of Science and the U.K.'s Royal Society really be issuing forceful joint statements in its defense? Would all of the professional organizations of different disciplines, including the likes of the American Statistical Association or the American Physical Society, really release similar supporting statements? Across every country in the world? But of course this sort of rational reference to expert opinion has been successfully demonized as the very core of the evils of our time.

 

End of day, your (unsupportable) broad brush statements are part and parcel of the political backlash against science – the side effect, that your attack necessarily erodes confidence in science as a whole (after all, how was this sort of colossal hoax not caught by the institutions of science??) is pure benefit from your point of view (consciously or unconsciously), not a cost.  

[waxliberty]

The 1.5 to 4.5 increase that  that you are referring to is actually an increase to the global temperature anomaly, relative to a base line temperature, correct?  And not an absolute temperature change.

 

It is a conceptual description of the strength of a warming response to a doubling of CO2. It says if you double the CO2 content in the atmosphere and allow the incoming/outgoing radiation to reach equilibrium again (which will take time as the climate has to absorb heat before it can radiate enough out through the enhanced greenhouse chemistry to match incoming radiation) you will see a temperature change between 1.5 and 4.5 degree C increase in global surface temperature relative to where you started. (Which of course is a staggering amount of heat energy, but then doubling CO2 is a big deal – we have only increased it 40% so far).

 

 

And you say that it's been the official IPCC estimate "for awhile now" - which is not actually the case at all.

 

From the 2007 AR4:

 

"It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantial higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.

 

And from the just released AR5:

 

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)¹⁶. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.

 

And they added the footnote:

"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."

 

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. I said "The sum of all this looking at many different lines of evidence has produced a range of estimates from 1.5 to 4.5 "warming per doubling" for awhile now, which is the offiical IPCC sensitivity assessment." My comment was that the sum of research has pointed to this range centered around 3 degrees for a couple of decades now, and that 1.5 to 4.5 is the current official IPCC assessment. You then say this is "not the case at all" and quote the latest IPCC saying it is ... 1.5 to 4.5.

 

 

And as an aside, even you have to admit that it's funny that for years climate skeptics were decrying that the 1998 el Nino spike was unduly inflating the perceived temperature increase, and now the alarmist are saying that the1998 el Nino spike unduly deflates the perceived temperature decline.

 

El Nino and internal variation was not a new concept for oceanographers in 1998. Just more circulation of internet lore.

[New Buddha]

@wax

 

This is in response to post #41 and what I touched upon in my bullet point where I stated that "the climate cannot be modeled".  I'd like to build on that and have you respond to the following.

 

Despite large advances in the quality of meteorological tools, the science is still incapable of making accurate forecasts beyond 5 days or so.  The questions that I would like you to answer are:

1. Why do you think this is?
2. Will the science of meteorology ever advance to the point that  accurate forecasts can be made for months and even years into to future?
3. If so, how will this be accomplished?  Better tools and computers?
4. And If not, why not?

 

edit for typo

Edited May 4, 2014 by New Buddha

[waxliberty]

@wax

 

This is in response to post #41 and what I touched upon in my bullet point where I stated that "the climate cannot be modeled".  I'd like to build on that and have you respond to the following.

 

Despite large advances in the quality of meteorological tools, the science is still incapable of making accurate forecasts beyond 5 days or so.  The questions that I would like you to answer are:

1. Why do you think this is?
2. Will the science of meteorology ever advance to the point that  accurate forecasts can be made for months and even years into to future?
3. If so, how will this be accomplished?  Better tools and computers?
4. And If not, why not?

 

Walk through my post #39 and pinpoint the spot where it is required that "scientists must predict the weather with precision" as part of the chain of logic. Your characterization of the topic as long-range weather forecasting is a complete and utter misunderstanding of the relevant scientific theory and logic.

 

Weather is the swirling around of heat and moisture within the climate system. It is chaotic and governed by Navier-Stokes. It is also not required that this problem be solved to make thermodynamic observations about the climate system over time. 

 

Of course the climate can be modeled. ("Cannot be modeled" is a somewhat inherently anti-science statement to make.) Above in #39 I stated we start by "modeling the planet as a big rock in space covered with a fluid "envelope" that can hold various amounts of heat." Inside that envelope, heat swirls around chaotically, mixing between the ocean and the air in giant oceanic oscillations that dominate year to year surface temperature readings, alternately pushing heat deeper in the ocean via wind-driven coastal downwelling or releasing it in calmer phases, etc. Nevertheless, we can look at the overall questions of radiative balance (incoming and outgoing energy) to understand what is happening with the heat content of the envelope as a whole, over time.

 

The common analogy is putting a pot of water on an open flame. Scientists see the "energy imbalance" and predict that the water will warm, bubble and eventually vanish. "Boiling" skeptics are outraged, and they want answers – if scientists are so omniscient as to predict the future(!), why can't they predict precisely when and where each of these bubbles will appear, exactly, and how many there will be. If they can't predict even these basic bubbles well enough in the short term, why do they think they can project this bubbling further into the future to a point where the bubbles have catastrophically taken all the water away?! Scientists reply hey, we're interested in those details, and we're working on modeling them specifically but it's extremely chaotic in there and I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The skeptics launch FOIA lawsuits, demand access to the scientist's personal email in order to document conspiracy to defraud, and proclaim the whole thing a proven hoax. (Just kidding, that part is only in the real global warming debate.)

 

The chaotic nature of weather does imply that scientists will not generally be making high precision forecasts of surface temperature. They will project ranges of what we will see on the surface based on the increasing total heat content of the climate system over time. This means contrarians can point to that imprecision as proof "the theory has been falsified!" for as long as they perceive the science to be a threat to their core view of the world.

[New Buddha]

@wax,

I'm really trying to be civil here, but you are making it very difficult for me to do, because you are literally ranting in your replies.  I mean, if you are getting so aggravated, why continue replying?

 

I'm trying to move the conversation in the direction of the philosophy of science and the nature of knowledge, induction, probability, etc.  If this is of no interest to you, or if you feel that you have nothing to learn because you already have an answer to everything, let me know and I'll quit posting.

 

You are being unconscionably rude.

[waxliberty]

Sure, none (events like "lead is an environmental toxin" or "cigarettes cause cancer" or "species extinction is a problem" hopelessly smaller in scale to date... of course controversial in their own right). 

 

Funny I wrote that just before catching up on the new Cosmos #7, which tackles the lead poisoning question and frames the story as one of the first big conflicts of this kind, very much along the lines of the discussion in this thread. Some discussion in articles like this.

 

It is striking the way the pattern replays itself. Robert Kehoe as the Richard Lindzen of the day, the exploitation of uncertainty to reject whole areas of understanding, the rigging of "burden of proof" to prevent action, the associated human cost.

 

It underscores the philosophical dilemma – you may not have an explicit problem with science as a philosophy and as a force in society in the abstract, but what good is it going to do for you, really? As with these cases, it's going to work against you – it's going to discover that leaded gasoline is poisoning people, or that second-hand cigarette smoke is causing cancer, or that CO2 is causing global warming, in short it's going to pit science against industry, which is to say science against John Galt. Requiring you to side with Kehoe and the fossil fuel industry against the fussy scientists griping about a little lead, be wrong and lose (here's the chart of how lead blood levels dropped after lead was removed from gasoline, and here's a chart exploring the subsequent correlation to drop in crime rate). Or, against the fussy little bureaucrats nattering about cigarettes (as Lindzen literally did), be wrong and lose. Of course this time is different, no doubt.

 

A role for science in policy and society is a recipe for more of this, not less, hency any collateral damage to "science" as an institution and concept in these debates is always a positive rather than an unfortunate side effect, in terms of ideological utility.

Edited May 4, 2014 by waxliberty

[waxliberty]

@wax,

I'm really trying to be civil here, but you are making it very difficult for me to do, because you are literally ranting in your replies.  I mean, if you are getting so aggravated, why continue replying?

 

I'm trying to move the conversation in the direction of the philosophy of science and the nature of knowledge, induction, probability, etc.  If this is of no interest to you, or if you feel that you have nothing to learn because you already have an answer to everything, let me know and I'll quit posting.

 

You are being unconscionably rude.

 

Feel free to highlight the passage you find "rude" toward you personally, as opposed to toward your arguments, in #44.

 

I will assume you are unaware of the tone you set yourself (review your first contribution to the thread – how helpful was it?)

 

And how 'polite' is it to level broad accusations of fraud and incompetence against scientists without apparently seeing much need to defend that, really?

[softwareNerd]

... pinpoint the spot where it is required that "scientists must predict the weather with precision" as part of the chain of logic.

Assuming average global temperatures are rising does not imply that every year will be higher than the previous one. It could well be that we see cooler spells within the long-term trend. I think that's what you're saying?

The counter question is: how long a pause can sit with the overall theory? 5 years? 10?

[waxliberty]

Assuming average global temperatures are rising does not imply that every year will be higher than the previous one. It could well be that we see cooler spells within the long-term trend. I think that's what you're saying?

The counter question is: how long a pause can sit with the overall theory? 5 years? 10?

 

I was emphasizing that meteorology in general is not core to the chain of logic behind global warming. I did make some references to the stochastic role of El Nino, which relates to "pause".

 

The term "pause" is itself a bit of another PR victory, there certainly hasn't been a "cooling period", just some slowing of surface warming (if you ignore the discussion about the arctic measurement gap for the moment). As ocean heating has continued and we've seen La Nina dominance (where you expect less surface warming – again >90% of heat storage is in the oceans), we're not very close to any fundamental challenge to the energy budget story described above. Surface warming is tied up in many things so it's hard to use it to establish one specific conclusion in a short time frame, it requires a more complicated discussion. Of course on some timeframe low observations there get meaningful to different parts of the current methods of projecting temperature. But keep in mind temperatures ran much hotter than projected for awhile in the 90s due to El Nino, and that didn't turn out to argue for revising much of significance.

 

For now, if you just feed the observed sequence of El Nino to models, they reproduce the observed temperatures pretty well. You can see the warming signal by taking simple steps like plotting El Nino, La Nina and ENSO Neutral years separately – smooth warming trend for each type of year. Longer discussion from Rahmstorf here. 

[New Buddha]

Temperature data are adjusted.  This is not an accusation of fraud - it is just a fact.  And I'm not implying that those making the adjustments are doing so with the intent to deceive. 

 

And in order to create a global temperature average, data is created by extrapolation from the sparse network of measuring stations to create a "grid".  Again, this fact does not imply that it is done to deceive.

 

And yes, in both instances, the major record keepers are starting to do a better of job of making the adjustment process more transparent.

 

What I'm trying to address is that in climate science, the historical temperature data is of a different nature than data in the applied sciences (for example engineering and medical research).  In the applied sciences replication (of data) and validation (of models) means something entirely different from replication and validation in climate science.

 

Software Nerd can probably see where I'm headed with this:  Climate science (both it's data and models) more closely resembles economics than the applied sciences.

Edited May 5, 2014 by New Buddha