The New Global Warming Thread

[Franko]

Did anyone catch Jon Stewart's interview with Christopher Horner last night? He wrote the Politically Incorrect guide to Global Warming, which bascially disputes any claims that climate change is occuring. I will likely check it out. I loved Stewart's opening comment, which made me immediate think of this thread, "I've also read the IPCC report, but I thought your book was more interesting, it didn't have any of the graphs and statistics, but it had a lot of cartoons!" Was not too sutble of a jab. I would have been interested in hearing more reasonable arguments from Horner other than the rhetorical stuff that basically says, 'we thought it was global cooling in the 70's therefore it can't be global warming now,' or even worse, 'the Environmental movement is involved in a major conspiracy to disrupt Capitalism, oh yeah and Environmentalists are fascists,' which he pretty much states.

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

In short, the models are built predicting available data; making your argument to "just wait and see" moot.

The ability to reproduce past climate change is in no way equivalent to being able to predict what the future holds. Reproducing past changes may be an encouraging sign, but we won't know whether these models are able to predict the future until they've been tested in the crucible of reality - that is once they've predicted events which are unknown and then, years later, those events unfold as predicted. Reproducing past changes does not qualify.

I am aware that you do not agree with my position. That much is clear. All that I'm looking for is an acknowledgment, some sign, that you understand my position. I don't think that I can make it any clearer, and honestly this is just getting frustrating now.

[xTYBALTx]

I was just reading through Wikipedia's index of logical fallacies (yes, I do this in my spare time), when I came across these nuggets, listed as examples of fallacious reasoning:

• Referencing scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so".
• Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus.

And something not from Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by Our Environmental Future, by Michael Crichton

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

[AMosely]

Focus in on the instrumental observation period from 1860-2000. That data has nothing to do with models. The average global temperature is increasing. Also notice the 'ice age' of the mid 1970's in that range. Which is the greater trend?



I urge all of you who do not wish to read the IPCC's literature on the subject to at least take a look at their graphics - http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm. Many questions are explored. Temperature is only one small (yet significant) part of this equation. As Rumsfeld would say, there are many 'known unknowns' in this subject - but we need to start accepting the 'known knowns' so we can focus more on the unknowns.

[xTYBALTx]

Dude. That's the now discredited hockey stick graph from the IPCC's 2001 report. Look for it in the 2007 report - it won't be there. The method used to create that graph also creates 'hockey sticks' out of randomly generated data.

[Franko]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Dude. That's the now discredited hockey stick graph from the IPCC's 2001 report. Look for it in the 2007 report - it won't be there. The method used to create that graph also creates 'hockey sticks' out of randomly generated data.

How was it discredited, I'm curious because it looks very similar to the graph on page 14 of the 07 report, as well as the graphs indicating temperature variations taken from ice core samples on page 3.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Dude. That's the now discredited hockey stick graph from the IPCC's 2001 report. Look for it in the 2007 report - it won't be there. The method used to create that graph also creates 'hockey sticks' out of randomly generated data.

The only disputed part of that graph relates the the 'proxy data' field - colored grey for a reason. I'm only asking folks to review the instrumental part consisting of the last ~200 years. The models beyond that, I agree, are debatable, yet one can't help but observe an obvious trend. Where is the scientifically acceptable (by thousands of international scientists) prediction model that show temperatures falling? There isn't one.

A consensus among models usually indicates strong probability in a given direction. Example - one weather model had Maine receiving freezing rain today, while another had a complete blizzard with 2+ feet of snow. What happened? Somewhere inbetween, leaning more towards the heavy snow side (so far). None of the models were 'correct,' but the trend they indicated was in fact quite correct.

I'll tell you one thing - if leadership doesn't start waking up, the economy is going to start looking like a hockey stick too, only in the wrong direction.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I'll tell you one thing - if leadership doesn't start waking up, the economy is going to start looking like a hockey stick too, only in the wrong direction.

Yes, many of the proposals on how to "solve" global warming would yield that kind of result. But Global Warming itself isn't nearly so dire--it has about as many positive economic effects as negative ones.

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by AMosely

The only disputed part of that graph relates the the 'proxy data' field - colored grey for a reason. I'm only asking folks to review the instrumental part consisting of the last ~200 years. The models beyond that, I agree, are debatable, yet one can't help but observe an obvious trend. Where is the scientifically acceptable (by thousands of international scientists) prediction model that show temperatures falling? There isn't one.

The entire purpose of the hockey stick graph is to cast the current warming trend as an exceptional occurrence. The hockey stick downplays the medieval warm period as well as the subsequent little ice age, making the 20th century warming appear dramatic. Without the grey portion of the graph, we are left with very little of value. It is the earlier portion, the grey portion, which provides the frame of reference for the hockey stick to exist.

Look, for example, at some temperature data covering a longer period of time. Note that while the different data sources do not agree, that there is a constant back and forth, up and down, from every single source. Also note the inclusion of the hockey stick graph in the upper corner. It's quite a pervasive little sucker, isn't it? Also note the inclusion of 2004's temperature. What on earth would a single year's temperature be doing on a graph which whose lines are comprised of 150 to 300 year averages? Let's jig some graphs!





The second graph is from this nice university course on the Halocene's climate. It's an interesting read.

You see, we've only just emerged from the little ice age (ended around 1850). During the little ice age, the earth experienced it's coldest temperatures since the last major glacial period, which terminated around 10-12k years ago. Ever since the end of the little ice age, the world's temperature has been going up.

I hope you can see that climate variation is nothing new.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

I hope you can see that climate variation is nothing new.

As a geoscientist, I recognize that global climate change is not a new idea. It’s been a part of geology almost as long as the field of study has been around; it’s an important factor of geologic processes. The earth has been much, much warmer than it is today. It has also (and more recently) been much cooler. Variation in the global temperature is cyclic, on a geologic time scale, and more or less fixed to a predictable series of frequencies.

Incidentally, I was in a small lunch meeting today with the senior executives of a large oil company and the topic of global warming was brought up (not by me). Every executive recognized the importance of environmental responsibility on a corporate and individual basis. They agreed with the scientific consensus that the climate was getting warmer and that industrialization was “more than likely” contributing to this increase. They recognized that governments and industries could do (and should do) more to work on reducing the human impact on global warming. Either through advances in new technology or incentives to utilize existing technology that may not be as cost effective as current methods call for. What I did ask was, "What if the science is all wrong?" The CEO said that the results of the studies “compelled action, regardless of how things may pan out in the future. I care about the future of my grandchildren and we’re building the future they’ll get.” Not an exact quote, but pretty damn close. Even in the oil industry, there is recognition of the scientific consensus on global warming and a concern for the future if that consensus is correct.

All that I'm looking for is an acknowledgment, some sign, that you understand my position. I don't think that I can make it any clearer, and honestly this is just getting frustrating now.

I understand your position. It is a position of inaction and foolhardy skepticism.

The collection of new data and the development of novel methods drive science further than skepticism for skeptics’ sake.

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

[On scientific consensus and logical fallacies]

The consensus of earth science is that crust moves on the surface of the earth.

The consensus in the biological sciences is that evolution is fact; it is a critical process in the macro and micro fields.

The consensus of archeology is that Cyprus was a critical influence during the bronze age.

There are thousands of other ‘consensuses.'

The consensus of science is built on data, reproducibility, and results; the drivers of the scientific method. A consensus is not political. But Crichton was right that it can all be changed by a single person.

Consensus is simply an agreement on the available data on a particular topic of scientific study. It can be weak and it can be strong. But it isn't wrong until new data or newer/better methodology makes it so.

It may be a logical fallacy to assume an article is correct because it appears in a prestigious journal, but it is not a fallacy to come to the conclusion that it is correct based on the science that the article employs.

…

The best methodology and the best data and the best results—the best of what is available, are in agreement on global warming. Human contribution to a change in global climate is highly probable and the result of that contribution is a grossly accelerated increase in mean global temperature. If the consensus is proved wrong upon revelation of new data or better methodology, great! The worst that has happened is lost capital in a faster-than-would-otherwise happen conversion of the human population to cleaner energy. However, if the consensus on the data is correct and policy makers, politicians, and businesses decide to “just wait and see, ‘they’ have been wrong before” and take no action, the cost of that inaction is much more than lost capital in a paradigm shift.

And here is the crux of the issue of global warming. The data, methodology, and results of studies regarding climate change are not political, however the solution is.

Originally Posted by Rincewind

I'm just getting the feeling from this and other threads that a few of you here would have a hard time accepting anything that becomes a consensus amongst modern scientists. Which is fine with me in the great scheme of things.

A contrarian position is noblest position to take in science. It is the surest road to recognition and fame (unless you have a Ph.D. in Zoology ). It ruffles the feathers and rattles the teeth of the emeritus. However, if you’re going to go the path of the contrarian make sure you have something more in your bag than big expectation, attacks on the status quo, and grumblings about the available data sets. Maybe pack some ‘solution’ and ‘ingenuity’ and dole them out to the “entrenched” on your way to greatness.

On that note, who in the climatological community is building the other camp? Which of them is bucking the status quo and on their way to greatness? Who’s using the data and the models in a novel fashion that show everything will be peachy keen; that the other guys have it all wrong? Because I’d honestly like to know. For real. As long as it isn’t more science analysts griping that it’s ‘impossible’ or ‘futile’ to try and predict the climate I’m open to their ideas.

/TLDR:

To xTYBALTx, Cing, and other dissenters:
What do we lose if the science is wrong and we act; what do we gain? What do we lose if the science is right and we don’t act; what do we gain? You don’t have to answer but I’d like read your observations.

Heck, I’d like to read everyone’s answers to those questions, because that is really what the discussion here should be about (IMHO).

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Cing, you don't have to buy it. That's a choice you can make. However, the majority of scientists, climatologists, and people who spend their lives working on climate forecasting have chosen to buy it. They made this decision using the best data and methods available to them (which have significantly advanced from the 1970's, fwiw). If that's not enough for some people, then that's not enough.

The majority of the world's scientists thought the world was flat once, too. Big deal... I think that you're wrong, though, on using the best data. These researchers get to choose what data they use and what data they ignore, and using this in such a highly politically charged research topic must cause a LOT of bias to be injected into their research.

Originally Posted by Rincewind

What I did ask was, "What if the science is all wrong?" The CEO said that the results of the studies “compelled action, regardless of how things may pan out in the future. I care about the future of my grandchildren and we’re building the future they’ll get.” Not an exact quote, but pretty damn close. Even in the oil industry, there is recognition of the scientific consensus on global warming and a concern for the future if that consensus is correct.

In answer to your last question, I think along the lines of this CEO. I'll argue here about how politicized and unscientific this topic really is, but I do try to reduce waste and inefficiency when it's convenient for me. I would love to have a good recycling program here where I live. I can't afford a hybrid vehicle, but I really wanted to get an Escape Hybrid. I'm not against making most of the changes that the sky-is-falling crowd wants to make, I just want them to admit that they're not sure they're right.

[Franko]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

The majority of the world's scientists thought the world was flat once, too. Big deal... I think that you're wrong, though, on using the best data. These researchers get to choose what data they use and what data they ignore, and using this in such a highly politically charged research topic must cause a LOT of bias to be injected into their research.

This brings us back to the peer review process, which I was surprised is so critically rejected in this discussion. The best data is the data that is most scrutinized, tested, re-tested, sometimes rejected and often revisited by others in the scientific community. Trust me, the peer review process can be anything but fun, there is nothing more heart wrenching than having your research turned into a dart board. It is not simply a matter of choosing the best data, it is a matter of endless scrutiny by people who dedicate their professional lives researching in these fields.

But you raise an important point by connecting the political interests with the scientific research, as if this is an inherently negative connection. Scientists may have believed that the earth was flat at one point, but this was based on an overwhelming religious doctrine that led political leaders of the church to advance this idea to serve their own goals of dominion. Over the past few decades it has not been in the interest of industry and governments to accept the possibility of climate change, as it would suggest the need for the world to reduce its oil consumption. So, do we need a rogue Copernicus to tell the world that there is no climate change? Or is it the other way around, are scientists confronting notions of complacency with the best available data that suggests we are impacting the climate? I believe its the latter.

[xTYBALTx]

This is turning into a copy of the 'Last Word' thread. Look, we're not going to agree, and it's clear that we have differing opinions. One thing that we do all agree on - I think - is that the best data is the data which is most scrutinized and reproducible. Which is precisely the problem with the GW models - they are utterly not reproducible, at this time, because what they predict has not yet happened.

We're all debating what result the experiment will have, as opposed to debating the results the experiment did have. Many people choose to accept the preliminary data, and while I consider that to be a break from the principles of science, it is your choice to make.

I now yield the forum to whomever wants to have the next 'last word.'

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by Comrade Franko

So, do we need a rogue Copernicus to tell the world that there is no climate change?

Not that there isn't climate change, but rather that it is a natural and cyclical process that we have little control over. Similar to how Copernicus "Busted the myth" that the sun circled the earth, is how current scientists dismiss the suns ability to affect weather on the earth.

Lucky Shot

[|TG|SugarNCamo]

Wow, Beatnik, you were right.



/end hijack and shameless bump