What Climate Wars Did To Science

[acerimusdux]

7 hours ago, Fourputt said:

One of the interesting concepts that he mentions is the theory of experimental bias.  When a group goes into an experiment with a preconceived idea of the expectations, the results almost always seem to match the expectations, whereas the same experiment done as a blind almost always has a different result.

This is definitely the case in general, with regard to human psychology. In the world of audio equipment for example, true audiophiles probably know by now that the only piece of equipment that really matters much is the speakers. They've even done tests where you build a system of the cheapest available components, and then one high end system costing thousands of dollars, throw a sheet over each, and hook them up to the same set of speakers, and nobody can tell one from the other. But when you let people see the equipment, they will normally prefer one over another. Things like brand, cost, looks, these all seem to have major effects on what people subjectively say they think sounds best. People will even claim that expensive branded cables or speaker wire sound better, when scientific double blind tests show otherwise (and that even plain old lamp cord works as well as anything else).

But I think scientists are usually aware of this sort of thing, and normally have procedures designed to prevent such biases from influencing results. 

 

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

All I'm really saying is that there still a significant and reputable viewpoint that human interaction to this point has had very little to do with global climate change. 

I think this is what many people would disagree with, actually. The open question at this point is not whether humans have caused warming, but rather, how much? 

 

Quote

The reason being  that real measured data has been too spotty and too recent in origin to be convincing to me.  Ice cores can give a fairly broad overview, but they often can't point to specific causes.  They can tell what occurred but not always why.

Yes, but isn't recent data enough to say something about what has happened recently? The recent data is of reasonably good quality. We know pretty well how much CO2 and other gasses we have added to the atmosphere, we know those gasses increase terrestrial radiation, and that radiation causes warming, and we know how much warming has recently occurred.

And even with regard to those ice cores, we already had most of the "why" long before we had the actual data.  Milankovitch cycles (orbital forcings) had been theorized about since the 1920s. And the greenhouse effect was proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. And it turned out the actual data was well explained by the combination of orbital forcings and carbon cycle feedbacks (from the "greenhouse effect"). The final piece seems to be falling into place with modern work on understanding the feedbacks caused by the formation and melting of large ice sheets (link). 

So by now we seem to have a good understanding of the causes of ice ages and how they end, but that all works only because of the warming effect of CO2.

That CO2 in the atmosphere sends radiation back to the earth is not controversial at this point. By now this is an exact science. We have machines now (like this) which can measure that radiation, and can tell based on the wavelength which gasses cause which radiation.

We now know that if we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppm (pre industrial level) to 400ppm (the current level) that this will cause EXACTLY 5.35*log(400/280) = 1.91 Watts per square meter of radiative force.

What remains uncertain are exactly what feedbacks exist, and to what degree,  within the climate. So the variable here that is debated is climate sensitivity, basically defined as how much a given increase in radiative forcing will actually increase the global temperature. 

 

[dak4n6]

7 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

This is definitely the case in general, with regard to human psychology. In the world of audio equipment for example, true audiophiles probably know by now that the only piece of equipment that really matters much is the speakers. They've even done tests where you build a system of the cheapest available components, and then one high end system costing thousands of dollars, throw a sheet over each, and hook them up to the same set of speakers, and nobody can tell one from the other. But when you let people see the equipment, they will normally prefer one over another. Things like brand, cost, looks, these all seem to have major effects on what people subjectively say they think sounds best. People will even claim that expensive branded cables or speaker wire sound better, when scientific double blind tests show otherwise (and that even plain old lamp cord works as well as anything else).

But I think scientists are usually aware of this sort of thing, and normally have procedures designed to prevent such biases from influencing results. 

 

I think this is what many people would disagree with, actually. The open question at this point is not whether humans have caused warming, but rather, how much? 

 

Yes, but isn't recent data enough to say something about what has happened recently? The recent data is of reasonably good quality. We know pretty well how much CO2 and other gasses we have added to the atmosphere, we know those gasses increase terrestrial radiation, and that radiation causes warming, and we know how much warming has recently occurred.

And even with regard to those ice cores, we already had most of the "why" long before we had the actual data.  Milankovitch cycles (orbital forcings) had been theorized about since the 1920s. And the greenhouse effect was proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. And it turned out the actual data was well explained by the combination of orbital forcings and carbon cycle feedbacks (from the "greenhouse effect"). The final piece seems to be falling into place with modern work on understanding the feedbacks caused by the formation and melting of large ice sheets (link). 

So by now we seem to have a good understanding of the causes of ice ages and how they end, but that all works only because of the warming effect of CO2.

That CO2 in the atmosphere sends radiation back to the earth is not controversial at this point. By now this is an exact science. We have machines now (like this) which can measure that radiation, and can tell based on the wavelength which gasses cause which radiation.

We now know that if we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppm (pre industrial level) to 400ppm (the current level) that this will cause EXACTLY 5.35*log(400/280) = 1.91 Watts per square meter of radiative force.

What remains uncertain are exactly what feedbacks exist, and to what degree,  within the climate. So the variable here that is debated is climate sensitivity, basically defined as how much a given increase in radiative forcing will actually increase the global temperature. 

 

Really, really well researched and well stated. 

[RandallT]

On 1/3/2016 at 4:50 AM, acerimusdux said:

First off, the overwhelming scientific consensus now, as reflected in the last IPCC report, is that there is a 95-100% chance that the dominant cause of the warming observed since 1950 is anthropogenic. So while that was a much debated matter in the middle of the twentieth century, by now, it's getting to where it's near to a certainty.

I think you are arguing with someone other than me. I believe the world is warming. In fact, I don't even see much of a pause. There might be a bit of a pause between the last el-Nino and the one starting now, but overall, the trend is clearly up from when the satellite monitoring started in the late 70s. Not much debate there. Below from satellite data (UAH). RSS is similar.

I believe that man is contributing to this, and the rise in CO2 is likely the culprit, due to the greenhouse effect. As for 95% certainty, I have no idea how they came up with that. I've searched, but to no avail. I get the feeling they're trying to put a number on something that is somewhat unquantifiable (but I'm not an expert). The rise from 1910-1940 was similar in the temperature rise, but that rise was not as definite? I am not clear how to be certain why one period is due to CO2, while another is not.

To sum up again why I'm contributing to this thread: I believe that the proof is weak that this is an imminent devastating problem, but we need to work hard toward better energy solutions... but damage to science has occurred because of the (at times over-the-top) alarmism going on, some of it hiding behind falsified science (Hockey Stick graph, etc), and some of it with rather dubious claims of absolute certainty that lead me to suspicion. I'd rather see more transparency than cocksure pronouncements of absolute knowledge.

On 1/3/2016 at 4:50 AM, acerimusdux said:

Now "imminent peril", that part I suppose is still subjective, and might be debated.  But there does seem to be an emerging scientific consensus as well that we are likely at the beginning of a "mass extinction event", defined as a period in which 75% of species die out in a geologically short period of time. But that could take thousands of years.

Ok, now we're finding agreement. From what I see, many in the movement are claiming near certainty of increased hurricanes, coastal devastation, droughts, wildfires, mass extinction, etc... and if not outright stating it, then implying it. That is the imminent peril I'm talking about. 

I've read a ton of the science, and I find that there's room to be skeptical that it is "settled" that we are in near-term danger from those things listed above. That has been my point in this thread, and I hopefully haven't posted too much that differs from that. Surely, it's possible lots of bad things could happen, but the time scale is unknown.

At one point, someone asked me what my threshold is for proof, and I honestly don't know. But what I've seen so far ain't it. The 97% consensus thing was about warming and man's contribution, and not about the future impact. But that gets confused a lot. Plus the study finding 97% consensus was flawed, but that's a different story.

I've just come to the conclusions that science has been damaged when dramatic claims are made about the imminent and devastating nature of the threat, without clearly qualifying the confidence level of that prediction.

On 1/3/2016 at 4:50 AM, acerimusdux said:

For a quick summary of the history though, I think it's been understood for over a century now that:

a> Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

b> Carbon dioxide will absorb radiation, and if put into the atmosphere, could cause warming.

Thus the main objections in the early twentieth century, to the theory that human use of fossil fuels would thus cause warming, were that:

A> it was possible that the additional CO2 being put into the atmosphere was being absorbed elsewhere, especially in the oceans.

B> it was believed that CO2 absorbed radiation in the same spectrum as water vapor, and that this spectrum might already be so saturated that adding more absorption there might not make a difference (i.e., all radiation in this frequency was already being absorbed).

These objections basically fell apart in the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1970s, there was convincing evidence that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation at around the 15 micron wavelength that is not absorbed by water vapor, and that the oceans were not absorbing additional CO2 anywhere near fast enough to make much difference. At this point, scientists were having trouble coming up with any good reasons why all that CO2 wouldn't cause warming, and a consensus was emerging that global warming could be a serious threat.

The real nail in the coffin though came with the ice core data in the 1980s. This showed pretty convincingly that:

1. CO2 concentrations were significantly higher than at any time in the hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data; so the CO2 humans had added wasn't being absorbed, it was all still out there.

2. There was a really tight correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations; it is obvious that CO2 radiative forcing does occur, it's not blocked by water vapor or anything else.

There's a lot more than that, and a ton of science that has been done in the last 3 decades that has confirmed and reinforced all this, and given a much more in depth understanding of how much of it works.

But by the first IPCC report in 1990, there was already a pretty strong consensus on the basic fact that human emissions of greenhouse gasses (especially CO2) was causing and would continue to cause warming. Isn't that much at least, pretty much "settled" by now?

Again, your point? I have denied none of this. Very few skeptics that I find respectable would debate much of this.  The question is the severity of the issue and the time scale. 

On 1/3/2016 at 4:50 AM, acerimusdux said:

Yeah, the last one at least looks flat out wrong to me. And coming from a climate denial site (wattsup...), and I'm not clear what the source is supposed to be. The first one just looks like it's cutting off the last few hundred (or maybe even a couple million) years. If I go to the link cited, I see something else:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

There, you can see that "today" is not so historically low anymore, actually the warmest since maybe the mid-tertiary? And a pretty sudden spike, at that.

The Sea level ones look OK, but just because there was 100+ meters of sea level rise over 10,000 years when the glaciers melted, doesn't mean that a 3 meter rise in the next century would be a small thing,

But anyway, I have to ask, did it occur to you that a Petrophysicist might not be the most reliable source to consult on climate change?  I'll stick to answering the points raised, just want to make sure you're aware of the source.

I agree the first one cuts off, but the point was to show how CO2 and temperature have varied widely, yet temperature has always stayed bounded in a range- not a runaway system. The planet seems to be resilient despite incredibly complex processes and conditions that are thrown at it. 

You do realize that the spike in temp that you mention was the coming out of a glaciation period, right? No human component with that. That was about 5C or so, I think, and we've warmed another 0.8C or thereabouts since 1880. The 0.8C is not insignificant, but that spike is not due to the industrial age.

The last one was just meant to depict the other warming periods that occur naturally. Climate changes constantly. It has been as warm or warmer with CO2 lower than it is now (Roman Warm, etc). 

Re: sea level. It has been rising at 1-2mm/year, I believe. Since the glaciers have melted, it has not stopped rising but has continued for thousands of years to rise at this same rate. Lots of graphs on that. Seas were rising well before man introduced CO2, although I agree some portion of the current 1-2mm/yr is from man.  Here's NOAA info.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Much of the East Coast of the US is 0-1mm/yr. Up in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, levels are even dropping. Of course, other parts of the world are rising, giving a global average of 1-2mm/yr, I think. So in a century, things are on track for 200mm, or .2m.

When I see articles calling for 6 feet of sea level rise by 2100, for example, I shake my head. Those our outlier projections, and would occur only if substantial land ice/ice sheets melted- and that'll take time. If/when that happens, we are definitely in some trouble- no disagreement from me there. They never seem to qualify those doom predictions, because it's more "attention-getting" to go with the big number.

Anyway, Roger Pielke below says things that are mostly from the IPCC. Please watch, if you care to see where I'm coming from. He studies extreme weather events, and I think he's typical of a "denier" that find worthy of some respect. Feel free to point me to a debunking of this. I believe I saw on whitehouse.gov site a rebuttal from Holdren to this testimony. It was an interesting read, but I didn't feel his case was as strong as this. 

His presentation in written form: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2013.20.pdf

If you'd rather not watch, this is what I find compelling was this part:

Quote

The inability to detect and attribute changes in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and drought does not mean that human-caused climate change is not real or of concern. 

It does mean however that some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better have made claims that are unsupportable based on evidence and research. 

Such false claims could undermine the credibility of arguments for action on climate change, and to the extent that such false claims confuse those who make decisions related to extreme events, they could lead to poor decision making. 

A considerable body of research projects that various extremes may become more frequent and/or intense in the future as a direct consequence of the human emission of carbon dioxide.5 

Our research, and that of others, suggests that assuming that these projections are accurate, it will be many decades, perhaps longer, before the signal of human-caused climate change can be detected in the statistics of hurricanes (and to the extent that statistical properties are similar, in floods, tornadoes, drought).

So at what point do we each decide the research and projections are good enough and devastating impact is imminent enough?  Honestly, I don't know or pretend to know. My gut just tells me that the planet is more resilient than our worst case projections at the moment. It would really suck if I'm wrong, but I understand that others have different thresholds of being convinced that we need to act on now. 

I'm a big proponent of nuclear power (certified Navy Nuclear engineer), but that doesn't seem to be gaining traction. If we truly believed CO2 was devastating, then nuclear power is a huge part of the solution (reliable power, proven technology with decades experience, plenty of resources available, no CO2 emissions).  Let's get on with it, already! Even James Hansen agrees with me: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/

 

[saevel25]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-will-the-world-really-be-2-degrees-hotter-than-it-used-to-be/

Quote

That means our near-term planetary future appears to be partly locked-in. Even if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were immediately stabilized at around 400 parts per million, we’re committed to another 0.4 to 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming because of an inherent 40-year lag in the climate system that delays the full effect of greenhouse gases on the oceans and atmosphere. (But, of course, we haven’t stabilized global carbon dioxide levels. In 2015, they rose at the fastest rate ever measured.)

No matter how quickly global temperatures rise over the coming years, the February record has added fresh relevance to the Paris climate deal. We’re very likely locked in to a 2 degree warmer world — even though last month was only a preview.

Discuss amongst yourselves  

[jsgolfer]

[Lihu]

16 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Looks more like a flying octopus.

Good one, though.

[jsgolfer]

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Nah, but here's a purple one attacking some people in China. . .

 

[jsgolfer]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Nah, but here's a purple one attacking some people in China. . .

 

Or:

With experts predicting that the effects of global warming could be catastrophic in the next 50 years, here are some ways that coastal cities are addressing the challenges of rising sea levels:

• Bar Harbor, ME: Officials urging residents to stockpile vintage charm in case of emergency
• Manhattan, NY: Initiating 10-year plan to replace inhabited residences with vacant Emirati-owned condo developments
• Nashville, TN: Making a concerted effort to keep their perimeter 435 miles from the nearest ocean
• Boston, MA: Residents have opened all of their doors and windows and issued an open challenge to the forces of nature to come at them
• Seattle, WA: Space Needle jacked up 200 feet higher
• Baltimore, MD: Restoring natural shoreline buffers like wetlands and shuttered factories
• Washington, D.C.: Thorough Scotchgarding of the Bill of Rights
• Atlantic City, NJ: Developers working around the clock to build something that would be worth saving from a flood
• San Francisco, CA: Dutifully pricing entire population out of any homes within 50 miles of coastline
• Galveston, TX: All set to rebuild coastal levees with government funding the moment Congress gets around to admitting climate change is real

"Yes This Is From The Onion"

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Or:

With experts predicting that the effects of global warming could be catastrophic in the next 50 years, here are some ways that coastal cities are addressing the challenges of rising sea levels:

• Bar Harbor, ME: Officials urging residents to stockpile vintage charm in case of emergency
• Manhattan, NY: Initiating 10-year plan to replace inhabited residences with vacant Emirati-owned condo developments
• Nashville, TN: Making a concerted effort to keep their perimeter 435 miles from the nearest ocean
• Boston, MA: Residents have opened all of their doors and windows and issued an open challenge to the forces of nature to come at them
• Seattle, WA: Space Needle jacked up 200 feet higher
• Baltimore, MD: Restoring natural shoreline buffers like wetlands and shuttered factories
• Washington, D.C.: Thorough Scotchgarding of the Bill of Rights
• Atlantic City, NJ: Developers working around the clock to build something that would be worth saving from a flood
• San Francisco, CA: Dutifully pricing entire population out of any homes within 50 miles of coastline
• Galveston, TX: All set to rebuild coastal levees with government funding the moment Congress gets around to admitting climate change is real

"Yes This Is From The Onion"

That's great, the first 4 are almost believable. The 4th one had me convinced it was real.

 

[jsgolfer]

Just now, Lihu said:

That's great, the first 4 are almost believable. The 4th one had me convinced it was real.

 

[jsgolfer]

33 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Nah, but here's a purple one attacking some people in China. . .

 

Off to LDC for a Chillwave.  

no need to get Shipwrecked when  you can ride a Chillwave.  Cheers.

[Lihu]

Just now, jsgolfer said:

Off to LDC for a Chillwave.  

no need to get Shipwrecked when  you can ride a Chillwave.  Cheers.

 

[DrvFrShow]

Solar panels.... we're still in the beginning of this tech. It's the patents that are important. I mean why not wean ourselves from burning fossil fuels if we can? What if you could generate electricity from windows? Apparently you can. Right now the tech isn't very efficient, but at one time that computer you carry around in your pocket was larger than a house and needed punch cards to do anything. Now "there's an app for that." 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188667-a-fully-transparent-solar-cell-that-could-make-every-window-and-screen-a-power-source

When this tech gets better install them on buildings, homes, and reduce the carbon footprint. 

Germany is also working on controlled fusion

Do we really need to cling to oil? 

Admittedly I'm kind of a techy. I'd like to see us move away from oil and coal and into the future.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

Solar panels.... we're still in the beginning of this tech. It's the patents that are important. I mean why not wean ourselves from burning fossil fuels if we can? What if you could generate electricity from windows? Apparently you can. Right now the tech isn't very efficient, but at one time that computer you carry around in your pocket was larger than a house and needed punch cards to do anything. Now "there's an app for that." 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188667-a-fully-transparent-solar-cell-that-could-make-every-window-and-screen-a-power-source

When this tech gets better install them on buildings, homes, and reduce the carbon footprint. 

Germany is also working on controlled fusion

Do we really need to cling to oil? 

Admittedly I'm kind of a techy. I'd like to see us move away from oil and coal and into the future.

The real benefit I see to that technology is we can become more power independent as individuals and less susceptible to terrorist threats on our power plants.  

[boogielicious]

My mom just had solar panels installed. She watches the kilowatt readings now and tells me about them everyday. It is going to help her a lot because she has electric heat. 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

My mom just had solar panels installed. She watches the kilowatt readings now and tells me about them everyday. It is going to help her a lot because she has electric heat. 

I'm doing some research on them to not only provide alternative power for my house but also to heat my pool.  It seems like there's about a 5 - 7 year ROI between the electricity savings and tax breaks.  I'd be curious if that is similar to your moms estimates.  

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'm doing some research on them to not only provide alternative power for my house but also to heat my pool.  It seems like there's about a 5 - 7 year ROI between the electricity savings and tax breaks.  I'd be curious if that is similar to your moms estimates.  

Is there here where we have winter, or in sunnier states?