What Climate Wars Did To Science

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/83264/what-climate-wars-did-to-science/90#post_1173959"] Thanks, except that science doesn't claim absolute truths.[/QUOTE] Thus indicating that man made climate change is more religion than science. ;-) Those who question the shaky theory are promptly declared to be heretics.

How is reporting that climate changes could be due to measured elevated levels of CO2 a religious belief?

[jsgolfer]

This is why I'm not convinced that

How is reporting that climate changes could be due to measured elevated levels of CO2 a religious belief

If you read all of the media reports coming out, very few, if any, ever note it could be due to CO2.  Most say it is due to excess CO2 and there is no reason to continue the debate.  Which is why I think that climate science has been hacked by political people.  And why I'm suspect that the data being used is correct.  NOAA just recently, adjusted all of the their surface temperature data, adjusted past temperatures as cooler, so that it looks like there is even more warming.  Something doesn't add up when the data is continuously adjusted.

[Lihu]

This is why I'm not convinced that  [QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/83264/what-climate-wars-did-to-science/108#post_1174011"] How is reporting that climate changes could be due to measured elevated levels of CO2 a religious belief[/QUOTE] If you read all of the media reports coming out, very few, if any, ever note it could be due to CO2.  Most say it is due to excess CO2 and there is no reason to continue the debate.  Which is why I think that climate science has been hacked by political people.  And why I'm suspect that the data being used is correct.  NOAA just recently, adjusted all of the their surface temperature data, adjusted past temperatures as cooler, so that it looks like there is even more warming.  Something doesn't add up when the data is continuously adjusted.

Could you send links regarding the temperature adjustments?

[jsgolfer]

Could you send links regarding the temperature adjustments?

In a meeting from 9-2, I'll see what I can link from my phone

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Even with ice cores you still have to make pretty liberal assumptions on what the exact climate was like. There might be other factors we do not know about that don't leave data in the ice cores.

I am not dismissing the data. The data is the data, but interpreting the data is the key. At best they might have a decent hunch as to what climate close to being. A hunch is not definitive answers. Can we say the world was warmer, probably. Can we say by how much, not sure. There is always a good amount of variance. To assume we know exactly what the climate was by taking ice samples from one area in the world is highly short sited.

I have a statistics PhD and have been colleagues with a number of people who work in climate modeling.  Human causation of climate change isn't a hunch.  Pretending that uncertainty about the degree of measurement error and association of various measurements with other features of interest and general variance of both measurement and the natural processes under investigation implies that the correct answer is a wave of the hands and a declaration that we just don't know and shouldn't take any actions based on hunches is either deeply uninformed, willfully deluded, or gullibly propagandized.

I'm not going to write 10,000 words about it, but suffice it to say that the evidence that the globe is warming and that it's caused by human activity is as strong or stronger than the evidence for many many things that basically everyone thinks is true without question.  Almost everyone accepts that smoking causes cancer, because it does, but we can't run experiments on that either and it isn't "proven" to the degree that climate skeptics insist we must prove global warming and human causation before we should take action.

Nice post. Thanks.

[jsgolfer]

In a meeting from 9-2, I'll see what I can link from my phone

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/ http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/ http://www.thepiratescove.us/2015/06/05/noaa-massages-data-to-erase-inconvenient-warming-pause/

[jsgolfer]

Nice post. Thanks.

[quote name="mdl" url="/t/83264/what-climate-wars-did-to-science/90#post_1173647"] I have a statistics PhD and have been colleagues with a number of people who work in climate modeling.  Human causation of climate change isn't a hunch.  Pretending that uncertainty about the degree of measurement error and association of various measurements with other features of interest and general variance of both measurement and the natural processes under investigation implies that the correct answer is a wave of the hands and a declaration that we just don't know and shouldn't take any actions based on hunches is either deeply uninformed, willfully deluded, or gullibly propagandized. I'm not going to write 10,000 words about it, but suffice it to say that the evidence that the globe is warming and that it's caused by human activity is as strong or stronger than the evidence for many many things that basically everyone thinks is true without question.  Almost everyone accepts that smoking causes cancer, because it does, but we can't run experiments on that either and it isn't "proven" to the degree that climate skeptics insist we must prove global warming and human causation before we should take action. [/quote] Why do you think the evidence is strong? The models are woefully bad at predicting the current non-warming. The models don't, in my opinion, accurately model clouds, radiative forcing and the output of the sun. So what makes you think that it is all human-induced and not more naturally occurring? Don't need a 10,000 word dissertation.

[Gunther]

Why do you think the evidence is strong? The models are woefully bad at predicting the current non-warming. The models don't, in my opinion, accurately model clouds, radiative forcing and the output of the sun. So what makes you think that it is all human-induced and not more naturally occurring? Don't need a 10,000 word dissertation.

Duke University would agree with you. They found that the models do not fully account for natural variability in surface temperatures and as such, exaggerate the man-caused aspect of warming or cooling trends. Earlier this year a university in India actually projected a global cooling period in our near future. It's the farthest thing from "settled" science is the point. https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

[jsgolfer]

Duke University would agree with you. They found that the models do not fully account for natural variability in surface temperatures and as such, exaggerate the man-caused aspect of warming or cooling trends. Earlier this year a university in India actually projected a global cooling period in our near future. It's the farthest thing from "settled" science is the point. https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

From the article. “Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,” Brown said. “Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.” And since we are in an 18 year hiatus, maybe the warming, or cooling, won't be as bad as reported.

[bigwave916]

115 posts in 8 days....that's got to be some sort of record. Thanks for the entertainment. Shots at the Koch brothers, but no mention of Al Gore? Funny stuff. Did you hear the one about the research ship that got stuck in the ice in Antartica? They were there to study global warming and the effect on the ice masses. They sent an ice breaker to get them out, and it got stuck. Then a second bigger ice breaker finally managed to free the other two. Now we have to call it "climate change" I read somewhere that all the planets in the solar system have been hotter, could it be that someone turned up the furnace? I read an article in Discover magazine about 5 years back that said we'd have a mini ice age. I thought about that while watching the Open Championship and also while much of the United States had a couple of relatively cold winters. I don't get in much of a snit about this stuff because I realize that human beings by their very nature are arrogant. The planet was here before us and it is remarkable how it moves on with whatever it's going to do in spite of us. The "damage" caused to the planet is overstated much like the effcacy of the remedies being suggested. Native Americans called the LA basin "Smokey Valley" before the first automobile was invented or industrial plant was built. They say that methane from cattle herds contribute to green house gases. So when people ask me what I'm doing to improve the environment. I say "I'm eating a cow! One steak at a time." (tip of the hat to Ron White)

[jsgolfer]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ccgs-amundsen-re-routed-to-hudson-bay-to-help-with-heavy-ice-1.3162900?cmp=rss

[mdl]

Why do you think the evidence is strong? The models are woefully bad at predicting the current non-warming. The models don't, in my opinion, accurately model clouds, radiative forcing and the output of the sun.

So what makes you think that it is all human-induced and not more naturally occurring? Don't need a 10,000 word dissertation.

What makes me think it is human induced is that I've been colleagues with, talked with, and been to seminars given by a number of very smart, professionally well informed people who work in climate modeling.  According to every well informed person I've ever personally talked with, nothing is up for debate except just how bad things will get given various possible trajectories of global emissions.  My opinion is based (in part of course, I'm just generally informed as a citizen who reads and understands science and statistics) on their work and their deep knowledge of the literature on the subject.

But even just as an informed citizen, it should be obvious.  You prove the point yourself just in the last two links, one from you and one you commented on approvingly.  Everyone in the climate modeling space will agree that there is uncertainty in how bad we're making things.  There are studies that suggest, like the one linked to above through the Duke page, that things will be "moderate", as in only disastrous.  Then there are other studies that suggest climate change will be extreme, as in a serious risk to civilization (and the earth) as we know it.  Claiming that fact as evidence for a climate-denier position is like claiming that the fact you're not sure whether the person you put in the hospital by beating them with a baseball is going to die or not is evidence that we can't be sure whether you beat them with the bat and caused the injuries.

The link about ice in the Hudson Bay is a complete non-sequitur.  Weather is variable, there are all kinds of complex systems and cycles, and just because we've already caused significant warming there will still be cold spells in particular regions and whatnot.  This is a classic climate-denier propaganda tactic.  See GOP congress members claiming that a bad winter in DC is definitive evidence that global warming is a hoax.  If I can find 10 (or 10,000) adult men who are 6', 165 lbs, does that prove that it's a left-wing/ivory-tower hoax that Americans are (much) fatter than they were 100 years ago?

[rkim291968]

But even just as an informed citizen, it should be obvious.  You prove the point yourself just in the last two links, one from you and one you commented on approvingly.  Everyone in the climate modeling space will agree that there is uncertainty in how bad we're making things.  There are studies that suggest, like the one linked to above through the Duke page, that things will be "moderate", as in only disastrous.  Then there are other studies that suggest climate change will be extreme, as in a serious risk to civilization (and the earth) as we know it.  Claiming that fact as evidence for a climate-denier position is like claiming that the fact you're not sure whether the person you put in the hospital by beating them with a baseball is going to die or not is evidence that we can't be sure whether you beat them with the bat and caused the injuries.

I would have used different analogy than your baseball beating ....

How about one jury of 12 when the 11 are convinced the accused is guilty b/c of overwhelming body of evidence?   The lone jury keeps coming up with "unreasonable" doubts: DNA evidence may have been planted, he could have an evil twin who was separated at birth and he was guilty of the crime, someone could have sneaked into his house & planted the murder weapon in his hand while he was sleeping, ...

There are people who still believes smoking is not harmful b/c they know of someone who smoked all his life and lived past 90.   Didn't cigarette company execs denied that they are harmful not so long ago even when they were settling with State governments?

There are plenty of people who thinks we never went to moon.   Many more who believe 9/11 was orchestrated by CIA/FBI.

Some believe global warming is a man made hoax.   We just came out of recent ice age 15000 years ago.   If we wait long enough, 1/2 of the world will freeze again when the ice age returns.   A little warming here and there is a natural cycle of how the earth turns.

[GaijinGolfer]

I would have used different analogy than your baseball beating ....

How about one jury of 12 when the 11 are convinced the accused is guilty b/c of overwhelming body of evidence?   The lone jury keeps coming up with "unreasonable" doubts: DNA evidence may have been planted, he could have an evil twin who was separated at birth and he was guilty of the crime, someone could have sneaked into his house & planted the murder weapon in his hand while he was sleeping, ...

There are people who still believes smoking is not harmful b/c they know of someone who smoked all his life and lived past 90.   Didn't cigarette company execs denied that they are harmful not so long ago even when they were settling with State governments?

There are plenty of people who thinks we never went to moon.   Many more who believe 9/11 was orchestrated by CIA/FBI.

Some believe global warming is a man made hoax.   We just came out of recent ice age 15000 years ago.   If we wait long enough, 1/2 of the world will freeze again when the ice age returns.   A little warming here and there is a natural cycle of how the earth turns.

The only problem with that is there have been ice core samples that show the Earth is warming quicker than ever before.  They know this because they can measure the amount of CO2 in the ice and compare how it has changed over time and compare it to today.  Conservatives need to stop burying their heads in the sand and stop acting like caring about the environment is a political issue.

[BearIrons]

There are so many variables in climatology that it'd be very difficult to "prove" that mankind is adversely effecting the climate, however - on the other side of that coin, it seems rather foolish to think all this crap we are putting into the atmosphere isn't throwing off the balance in some way.  Trying to reduce emissions certainly can't hurt and should never be ridiculed as some conservatives are apt to do.

One interesting point that I've read in several places is that the earth is not in as great danger of warming as it is of cooling.  Meaning - warming will very quickly (relatively speaking) result in an ice age.  Warming increases precipitation, and with that comes increased cloud cover.  Fewer sunny days means less snow melts in places.  Over time (we're talking centuries if not more) snow builds up more and more, simultaneously reflecting heat away from the planet, cooling it even more.  It's a snowball effect at its finest, pardon the pun.

[jsgolfer]

What makes me think it is human induced is that I've been colleagues with, talked with, and been to seminars given by a number of very smart, professionally well informed people who work in climate modeling.  According to every well informed person I've ever personally talked with, nothing is up for debate except just how bad things will get given various possible trajectories of global emissions.  My opinion is based (in part of course, I'm just generally informed as a citizen who reads and understands science and statistics) on their work and their deep knowledge of the literature on the subject.

But even just as an informed citizen, it should be obvious.  You prove the point yourself just in the last two links, one from you and one you commented on approvingly.  Everyone in the climate modeling space will agree that there is uncertainty in how bad we're making things.  There are studies that suggest, like the one linked to above through the Duke page, that things will be "moderate", as in only disastrous.  Then there are other studies that suggest climate change will be extreme, as in a serious risk to civilization (and the earth) as we know it.  Claiming that fact as evidence for a climate-denier position is like claiming that the fact you're not sure whether the person you put in the hospital by beating them with a baseball is going to die or not is evidence that we can't be sure whether you beat them with the bat and caused the injuries.

Except that according to the models, with the global emissions continuously going up, the disastrous warming that the models indicate hasn't occurred.  So either the planet is better at coming into it's own mass balance with CO2 or there is something wrong with the models.  Calling anyone who disagrees with the disastrous warming as a climate denier is wrong (ad hominem IMO). I've never denied the climate is changing, it always has and always will.  Just how much is our fault versus natural means is up for debate.  You believe that we are responsible and I think we have a small part.  But calling someone with who you disagree with as uninformed or somehow not able to adequately understand the issue, is disingenuous.

Appealing to authority does not prove a point, nor change reality (NOAA is cooking the temperature record).  And the popularity of an idea is also no guarantee that it's right.

The link about ice in the Hudson Bay is a complete non-sequitur.  Weather is variable, there are all kinds of complex systems and cycles, and just because we've already caused significant warming there will still be cold spells in particular regions and whatnot.  This is a classic climate-denier propaganda tactic.  See GOP congress members claiming that a bad winter in DC is definitive evidence that global warming is a hoax.  If I can find 10 (or 10,000) adult men who are 6', 165 lbs, does that prove that it's a left-wing/ivory-tower hoax that Americans are (much) fatter than they were 100 years ago?

I posted the link because I find it comical, nothing more, nothing less.  Weather is extremely variable, and climate is much more complex.  We are talking about a chaotic system, with so many variables and processes that they really don't fit nicely into a GCM.  Why would you trust a model that has to be hand-tuned to match retrospective data to be accurate going forward, unless that model had been observed to have a high degree of accuracy when actually run forward for a while (a test every climate model has failed at so far).

Yes, anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove something happening at the global level but I will bet if the sea ice was down, someone would use it that way.  Seems like every weather event is used for evidence that climate change is occurring and it's because I drive a car instead of an electric car.

So what do we have at the end of the day.

That climate changes at every instance and along` every time scale. There are warm spells, ice ages, droughts, extreme rainfall, etc. The fact that the climate will change and continue to change is unfortunately not a human invention, although there are those who wish we could alter the climate.  And just because the overall changes have been much more intense than any of us have witnessed in our lifetime does not mean that it will be bad, who knows maybe it will be good.

I'd prefer a little warmer world than a cold one.  My two cents.

[jamo]

Yes, anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove something happening at the global level but I will bet if the sea ice was down, someone would use it that way.  Seems like every weather event is used for evidence that climate change is occurring and it's because I drive a car instead of an electric car.

And they're equally wrong.

[jsgolfer]

And they're equally wrong.

I agree