What Climate Wars Did To Science

[phillyk]

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/scientists-have-long-feared-this-feedback-to-the-climate-system-now-they-say-its-happening

Interesting article about rising temperatures increasing the amount of carbon that goes from the soil to the atmosphere and how the offset by increased photosynthesis most likely won't cover the overall loss.  The article stated that this increase wasn't included in many forecasts for temperature, and that this new information will accelerate the rise.  They did state that they haven't researched yet how to suppress this loss, if it is possible.  Likely suppression methods would come from a different soil cover or something, I don't really know much about it.

[Lihu]

5 hours ago, phillyk said:

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/scientists-have-long-feared-this-feedback-to-the-climate-system-now-they-say-its-happening

Interesting article about rising temperatures increasing the amount of carbon that goes from the soil to the atmosphere and how the offset by increased photosynthesis most likely won't cover the overall loss.  The article stated that this increase wasn't included in many forecasts for temperature, and that this new information will accelerate the rise.  They did state that they haven't researched yet how to suppress this loss, if it is possible.  Likely suppression methods would come from a different soil cover or something, I don't really know much about it.

It's not really that new, but this is just one of many things that make me think that the process is not reversible.

The earth is such a complicated system that there are many things scientists will miss simply because they're humans who are prone to error. They should really act accordingly. . .

As for fixing the issues, we should focus on what to do about it instead of bickering about little things.

[Strandly]

On 11/28/2016 at 10:36 AM, boogielicious said:

That is the excuse nay-sayers use. It also seems to me that the majority of the folks that deny humans have contributed also support deregulating industrial standards. The private sector will not regulate itself. They will do what is best for the corporation and shareholders, which is appropriate. Real change has to come from the rest of us. Pollution is bad, we all know this. We all have to do something about. Even China gets it now and their smog is unbelievable. 

I think he's right actually.  The arrogance of man is astounding and people love to think they have ultimate power over the universe.  Remember when the volcano in Iceland or whatever erupted several years ago and shut down air traffic for a month?  That was nothing.  I think if the day ever comes where there's an eruption in Yellowstone, or a major earthquake in California, or even if a largish meteor hits the planet somewhere humans will be in for one hell of a rude awakening.

[Lihu]

3 hours ago, Strandly said:

I think he's right actually.  The arrogance of man is astounding and people love to think they have ultimate power over the universe.  Remember when the volcano in Iceland or whatever erupted several years ago and shut down air traffic for a month?  That was nothing.  I think if the day ever comes where there's an eruption in Yellowstone, or a major earthquake in California, or even if a largish meteor hits the planet somewhere humans will be in for one hell of a rude awakening.

I agree with this statement, but it applies to both sides of the argument.

One of the hypothesis is that we are still coming out of an ice age, and that the greenhouse gas emissions have only partially catalyzed the situation faster than it would have happened "naturally".

It was very unpopular to discuss this possibility because so many partisan individuals just wanted to force their own values on everyone else.

The statement I wrote probably applies to both sides of the argument as well.

The main issue I have is we are trying to stop something that is obviously on a collision course with us. It's like an asteroid about to hit us, and everyone is saying that we need to conserve our natural resources to prevent the collision while others are saying to use them up.

I totally agree with your rude awakening statement. We need realize that climate change is going to happen. We should all ask ourselves "What should we do about it?" and not just blame each other for being arrogant.

It serves no purpose for finding solutions. . .

 

 

[Gunther]

A bit concerned that it appears Ivanka wants to make this her signature issue.  She went so far as to meet with Gore today, of all people.  Hopefully this is just an appeasement play, although I hate those too.  

No time or money to chase this down a rabbit hole over the next 4 years.  Too many far more pressing issues to solve.

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, Gunther said:

A bit concerned that it appears Ivanka wants to make this her signature issue.  She went so far as to meet with Gore today, of all people.  Hopefully this is just an appeasement play, although I hate those too.  

No time or money to chase this down a rabbit hole over the next 4 years.  Too many far more pressing issues to solve.

A good management team addresses short term and long term issues.  At some point those long term issues become short term problems.  

I see nothing wrong with Ivanka looking at environmental issues, she has young children and the climate change should be a concern for her.  I do question her selecting Al Gore as the person to reach out to but that's off topic.  

[Elmer]

38 minutes ago, Gunther said:

A bit concerned that it appears Ivanka wants to make this her signature issue.  She went so far as to meet with Gore today, of all people.  Hopefully this is just an appeasement play, although I hate those too.  

No time or money to chase this down a rabbit hole over the next 4 years.  Too many far more pressing issues to solve.

Maybe PEOTUS when he takes office can use his proposed 35% tarrif on shipping items back into the country from companies who have moved overseas, & put it towards climate change and environmental issues.

[Lihu]

49 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Maybe PEOTUS when he takes office can use his proposed 35% tarrif on shipping items back into the country from companies who have moved overseas, & put it towards climate change and environmental issues.

 

Reducing fuel consumption by some tiny fraction probably isn't going to cut it. Even if we cut it to zero, there's no guarantee that we'll stop the temperature from rising.

The solution might be the opposite of what you have in mind. For instance, the environmental impact of a huge seawall around Florida or something like that is not exactly "environmental". . .

Even re-location is going to cost a fortune. So, I would advise wealthy people living along the coast to just buy lots of land at or above "8m". . .

[Buckeyebowman]

On 11/27/2016 at 0:10 AM, iacas said:

A day on earth changes on the order of a few milliseconds.

Please don't be a climate change denier. Virtually every scientist studying this stuff will tell you it's real, it's important, and humans are the cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change - I'm not linking to Wikipedia as a definitive source, but look at it as a starting point.

I guess that's the true state of the world today. Anybody who raises an issue with the current thinking is automatically labeled a "denier". Or should that be "denyer" since denier can be used to indicated the thickness of a certain type of cotton cloth employed to make work clothing.

It's much the same with anyone who has an issue with the personal or professional conduct of another person automatically being labeled a "hater". I don't really hate anyone except maybe child molesters, murderers, and rapists. This is just intellectual laziness.

And "virtually" every scientist studying "this stuff" absolutely does NOT agree with human caused global warming. But where is their forum? Does the dominant media culture report their findings? Do they provide them a pulpit? No. They don't advance the story line currently in vogue.

There were a lot of supposedly smart people behind the eugenics movement in the early 20th century until it was shown to be bullcrap!

If you want to call me anything, call me a skeptic!

On 11/27/2016 at 0:29 PM, newtogolf said:

This is where I'm at, we are putting coal miners out of work here in the US but China and India continue to build coal burning power plants.  

I fully support the use of solar and wind as alternative power sources but they're not ready to take over as primary power sources.  Nuclear remains the cleanest power we can produce but no one wants the plants in their home town, so it seems we're premature in calling for alternative power sources and shutting down coal mines when we don't have superior alternatives.  

It wasn't that long ago when China was opening a new coal fired power plant every week! That's what made me howl at one of Hillary's campaign ads about who was going to be the "clean energy" leader in the world. The U.S., Germany, or CHINA!!?? Are you kidding me?

Solar and wind energy are far less efficient than anything else we have, and are basically an adjunct. Nuke seems to me to be the way to go, but you're right, everybody is spooked about it. Why? Basically media sensationalism. Here's something most folks don't think about. Remember those old monster movies of the late '50's and early '60's? If you're not my age you probably don't, but what was the reason that all those mutant creatures arose? NUCLEAR RADIATION!

We were the unwitting victims of a Hollywood based, anti nuke power propaganda effort! Nowadays we have such heroes as Captain Planet to carry the message forward! Consider the source, indeed!

[saevel25]

8 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I guess that's the true state of the world today. Anybody who raises an issue with the current thinking is automatically labeled a "denier".

I think the issue is that with a high majority of scientist believe humans have influenced the climate. A good percentage of those people believe humans have had a significant impact. These are people who know more than we will ever do. It probably can be said that it is a fact that humans have influenced climate for the worse. Denying these basic facts is just idiotic.

I have no issue with people debating what policy should be done to help correct this. Outright denial of facts should not be done.

8 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And "virtually" every scientist studying "this stuff" absolutely does NOT agree with human caused global warming.

A very high percentage of scientists believe humans have caused in some degree climate change for the worse. 

8 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Solar and wind energy are far less efficient than anything else we have, and are basically an adjunct. Nuke seems to me to be the way to go, but you're right, everybody is spooked about it. Why? Basically media sensationalism.

I agree with this. We need to invest in Nuclear. No politician wants to be associated with it because of the possible, statistically very very very low failure that could happen. There is so much regulation on building a new nuclear plant it's economically impossible for a private investor to build one.

8 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Nowadays we have such heroes as Captain Planet to carry the message forward! Consider the source, indeed!

This is incorrect. Are there more people who are for us reducing our impact on the climate, sure. Are there more spokespeople, sure. They have a more clearer and louder voice because scientist have proven that we have had a pretty bad impact on climate. It's tougher for the people who don't want to believe in climate change because now they are trying to fight facts not opinions.

[newtogolf]

56 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I think the issue is that with a high majority of scientist believe humans have influenced the climate. A good percentage of those people believe humans have had a significant impact. These are people who know more than we will ever do. It probably can be said that it is a fact that humans have influenced climate for the worse. Denying these basic facts is just idiotic.

I have no issue with people debating what policy should be done to help correct this. Outright denial of facts should not be done.

I think the issue is that with a high majority of scientist believe humans have influenced the climate. A good percentage of those people believe humans have had a significant impact. These are people who know more than we will ever do. It probably can be said that it is a fact that humans have influenced climate for the worse. Denying these basic facts is just idiotic.

This is incorrect. Are there more people who are for us reducing our impact on the climate, sure. Are there more spokespeople, sure. They have a more clearer and louder voice because scientist have proven that we have had a pretty bad impact on climate. It's tougher for the people who don't want to believe in climate change because now they are trying to fight facts not opinions.

If you've read my posts here I'm not a "denier" but I'm not a "believer" either.  I'm 51 years old and I can tell you first hand, over the course of my life I've learned science isn't always right. What science claims is "fact" is really "best theory at the time".  There was a time when science said it was "fact" that the earth was cooling.  Then science said it was a fact it was "warming up"  now they've hedged their bets and say it's "changing".  

The science that predicts our weather is barely 50% accurate, the science that tells us in one study caffeine/wine/meat is good for us tells us it's not in another.  Science can't get it wrong so often then tell us on this one issue it's fact.   

I have read enough "science" to accept that excessive amounts of CO2 is not good for our planet that is having it's forest land reduced and water bodies compromised.  I don't believe science has it right but I do believe that there are and will be adverse effects to the future of life (not the planet) if we don't as individuals make some changes to how we spend our time on the planet. 

I've stated in previous posts that I believe as individuals we have a responsibility to not be reckless with our planet, to not pollute, to conserve when feasible, basic win/win initiatives.  Before I go making some really hard or costly sacrifices the world needs to "buy in" to the "science".  China and India need to not just stop building coal burning power plants but shut some down, governments need to push to create nuclear plants because they produce the cleanest power.  The UN needs to step in and establish policies the world must abide by if this as is serious a problem as science claims.

I'm not a kid, telling me to do as they say and not as they do doesn't work for me anymore but as a responsible adult I'll do what makes sense anyway.

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If you've read my posts here I'm not a "denier" but I'm not a "believer" either.

I didn't quote you. 

15 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

There was a time when science said it was "fact" that the earth was cooling.  Then science said it was a fact it was "warming up"  now they've hedged their bets and say it's "changing".  

This is the disconnect between scientific studies and the media. They might take a title, or conclusion with out reading the specifics and report on it. That isn't the scientist fault. It doesn't make the science faulty or disprove what has been reported. 

[jsgolfer]

I've largely stayed out of this topic, even though I'm the one who started it, because it is a zero sum game.  Does man add to climate change, hell yes!  From the minor greenhouse gas, CO2 (water vapor is much more), land use, etc.  Has the earth warmed over the last 100 years, again hell yes.  About .7 degrees C over the last century, we can quibble on the exact number but that is largely what is reported.  And then we can disagree on whether there is anything wrong with that.  Not sure the little ice age was a pleasant time to be alive.

I'll state this is best I can, what I deny is that man's contribution will lead to catastrophic warming.   

In order to get climate catastrophic warming, two things have to occur.  First you have to say that the contribution of warming from doubling of CO2 (greenhouse gas theory) will lead to about a degree or so of warming over the next 100 years.  We can agree or disagree again if this is bad or not. I believe it won't be bad, human's are great at adapting to long range disasters.  

The only way to get catastrophic warming is through positive feedback's that multiple the greenhouse gas theory warming by several factors.  This is where the global warming modelers lose it in my opinion and it is not settled.   Positive feedback is solely based on models (and if you really believe models are 100% accurate, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you) and according to these models it is totally attributed to man.  However, the accelerated warming that should have occurred is not supported by anything we have observed.  And so it is supposedly hiding somewhere, but we can't find it, but it will be really bad when it is found.   Color me skeptical.

And to top it off, there are around 1.3 billion that lack access to cheap power or any power and another 2 billion that still cook and heat using biomass and dung.  So it is hubris that we (developed countries) have the luxury to tell them to not do what we did in order to save the planet, when in fact we should be doing all we can to assist them with getting cheap energy so that they can rise out of poverty and then they can help saving the planet.  But that unfortunately that will be rarely discussed.

And lastly a good post by Scott Adam's (Dilbert cartoonist).  

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science

 

 

 

[DaveP043]

11 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

I've largely stayed out of this topic, even though I'm the one who started it, because it is a zero sum game.  Does man add to climate change, hell yes!  From the minor greenhouse gas, CO2 (water vapor is much more), land use, etc.  Has the earth warmed over the last 100 years, again hell yes.  About .7 degrees C over the last century, we can quibble on the exact number but that is largely what is reported.  

This is where I am too, I believe that warming has occurred over the last 100 years or so, and I accept that mankind has almost certainly had an influence.

14 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

The only way to get catastrophic warming is through positive feedback's that multiple the greenhouse gas theory warming by several factors.  This is where the global warming modelers lose it in my opinion and it is not settled.   Positive feedback is solely based on models (and if you really believe models are 100% accurate, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you) and according to these models it is totally attributed to man.  However, the accelerated warming that should have occurred is not supported by anything we have observed.  And so it is supposedly hiding somewhere, but we can't find it, but it will be really bad when it is found.   Color me skeptical.

Again, this is where I am.  I've seen plenty of computer models in my own field, and I know just how inaccurate even the best models can be.  A difficulty with the climate models is that there's absolutely no way to verify that they're accurate.  The scientists who are developing the models are able to adjust the models to increase or decrease the influence of many of the variables, and have to use their judgement as to what the right balance of influences is.  They can't test their variables in a real-world way, they have no choice to use their judgement.  In other words, they adjust the model to give the results that they believe are correct.

21 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

IAnd lastly a good post by Scott Adam's (Dilbert cartoonist).  

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science

Very interesting and well-stated.  His summary is another that I agree with:

Quote

As I said above, I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.

Each of us evaluates the scientific results in light of our own beliefs.  We don't understand all the science, we don't understand how the models were constructed, we look at the results and form an opinion based on whether those results make sense to us.  Right now, if the results minimize the effects of climate change, or indicate that mankind isn't responsible, most of us will conclude that the study is invalid.  

[tdiii]

"Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. If science says something is true – according to most scientists, and consistent with the scientific method – I accept their verdict."

Above is the opening two sentences of Adam's blog.  But, climate change is not susceptible to testing in accordance with the scientific method, so he's missed the mark from the start.  And this is something the scientific community needs to admit, be open about, and work through.  There is no testing of the hypothesis that man made activity is contributing to observed increases in temperature by doing an experiment. 

I am a skeptic.  With that said, I think there's a very strong chance that man made activity is contributing to climate change. And that this strong chance, suggests taking precautionary steps.  I mean, there was a small chance the Russians would launch nuclear warheads, and to deal with that, we developed our own arsenal at huge expense.  But the climate change movement is so politicized and intellectually dishonest, that it is always easy for me to dismiss it (at my peril, I guess). 

If the climate change scientists would be open about the limitations of the scientific method, and the fact that there are open questions, I think they would make more headway. 

[14ledo81]

@jsgolfer, thanks for the link.

I found this quote to be spot on.... 

 "There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.  "

[phillyk]

1 hour ago, tdiii said:

"Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. If science says something is true – according to most scientists, and consistent with the scientific method – I accept their verdict."

Above is the opening two sentences of Adam's blog.  But, climate change is not susceptible to testing in accordance with the scientific method, so he's missed the mark from the start.  And this is something the scientific community needs to admit, be open about, and work through.  There is no testing of the hypothesis that man made activity is contributing to observed increases in temperature by doing an experiment. 

I am a skeptic.  With that said, I think there's a very strong chance that man made activity is contributing to climate change. And that this strong chance, suggests taking precautionary steps.  I mean, there was a small chance the Russians would launch nuclear warheads, and to deal with that, we developed our own arsenal at huge expense.  But the climate change movement is so politicized and intellectually dishonest, that it is always easy for me to dismiss it (at my peril, I guess). 

If the climate change scientists would be open about the limitations of the scientific method, and the fact that there are open questions, I think they would make more headway. 

Well, most of climate change is based on records taken since whenever and then we have some ice cores for some record of atmospheric changes.  So yes it is susceptible to testing and is actively done all the time.  Temperature increase and CO2 increase is pretty easy to see from the data.  Predictions for cm rises in ocean height or temperatures in the future is of course a prediction.  No scientist would ever tell you that something will 100% happen in the future.  It's always a percentage chance or something similar.

But your missing the point that not all science follows the scientific method, there is theoretical science (mostly in the form of theoretical physics).  But most should assume of course that we are not 100% sure about anything we conclude in that area, because it is theoretical, something based on current data to predict future events.  Like, because the earth has been revolving around the sun for quite a long time, we are 99.9999999999% sure that it will continue to be that way 48hrs from now.  Can't test it, but there's enough data to be fairly certain it will happen.

The hypothesis about man made activity is tough to test, but is possible because of the chemicals only man can make and emit to the atmosphere.  For example, we know in what amount the CO2 was contributed by man.  The question is more to what effect do all these elements matter, which is the active part of climate science right now.  There are so many variables (natural and man-made) that are either contributors or sinks (even some we may not know about yet), that making these hypotheses take a long time to make.  Something may come out today that seems odd, so another group does the experiment to question the validity and posts their results 6 months later.  So then that group goes back to improve the experiment and comes out years later than the last experiment.  This stuff isn't testable in one day and the climate doesn't cooperate to stay the same during that period.

Science is a weird profession from the outside.  The people taking the measurements and writing the research love to have people question their results, so they can make their field better.  Their bosses (non-scientists) don't like the questioning because they are the ones pounded for a concrete answer by the public.

I have my opinion now, and if the data does definitively lean the other way, my opinion will change with it and that's fine with me.

[Gunther]

31 minutes ago, phillyk said:

I have my opinion now, and if the data does definitively lean the other way, my opinion will change with it and that's fine with me.

Admirable because I know how devout you are on this topic.

I am a proud denier of AGW although climate change cannot be denied.  That's why/how the term came to be.  And, I am interested in learning more about coral reef degradation; not a believer that it's man-caused but willing to keep an open mind.