1379: "4.5 Degrees"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:07 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Can we also dispense with this notion that only one such paper has evaluated the consensus of climate scientists?

http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/Research/Climate_C ... change.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full


I discussed the methodologies of two papers so far, the methodology of these two are not much better and suffer from the same problems. Let's discuss the methodology now.

Izawwlgood wrote:And that numerous organizations have also released statements about their support of AGW:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1


I don't consider societies or organisations to be scientists, they follow a different logic. I don't believe that knowledge can be improved by committees.

gmalivuk wrote:WHo has put forward such a theory?


Catprog, a couple of posts up. A dialogue between two individuals colluding to hoodwink the general public for (presumably) their own benefit.

Otherwise know as a conspiracy.

CPADave71
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:51 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CPADave71 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:19 pm UTC

http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

I would be very interested to see where this article has its facts wrong. This is as complete and seemingly well-sourced a takedown of the climate models as I've seen. It's convincing to me, and I'm sure to many, many others as well.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:33 pm UTC

CPADave71 wrote:http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

I would be very interested to see where this article has its facts wrong. This is as complete and seemingly well-sourced a takedown of the climate models as I've seen. It's convincing to me, and I'm sure to many, many others as well.


The big problem with AGW-supporters is that they seemingly fail to understand that the key in science is not proof, and being only understandable to "experts" is not a virtue, and unanimity of opinion among these experts is often an indication of fuzzy theories.

These are all key attributes of pseudo-science.

Science is about postulating a falsifiable theories which tells us something we would have known absent that theory, and which repeatedly fails to be falsified in risky tests in real world observations, preferably under controlled conditions.

I'm not a huge fan of Mises myself, but the critique is well constructed from that point of view at least.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby PeteP » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:48 pm UTC

CPADave71 wrote:http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

I would be very interested to see where this article has its facts wrong. This is as complete and seemingly well-sourced a takedown of the climate models as I've seen. It's convincing to me, and I'm sure to many, many others as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html Not based on the same article from him apparently but apparently he talked about similar things in it since they talk about many of the same topics so it might be helpful. (Btw notice how he for instance doesn't provide a source or support for the dampening in his first sceptic part? The 5 does not lead to a reference just a footnote. I don't know why you call it well sourced when many claims don't provide a source.)

dawolf
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby dawolf » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:59 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:The big problem with AGW-supporters is that they seemingly fail to understand that the key in science is not proof,


Proof is absolutely key to science. The only key? No.

Dyno wrote:and being only understandable to "experts" is not a virtue,


It's very understandable to non-experts as well. There are literally thousands of websites out there with explanations.

Dyno wrote:and unanimity of opinion among these experts is often an indication of fuzzy theories.


Ah! Bizarro world! I've missed you!

Dyno wrote:These are all key attributes of pseudo-science.


Facts, scientific explanations and unanimity of opinion are key attributes of pseudo-science? You have this exactly backwards.

Dyno wrote:Science is about postulating a falsifiable theories which tells us something we would have known absent that theory, and which repeatedly fails to be falsified in risky tests in real world observations, preferably under controlled conditions.


The scientific method depends on testable hypotheses. The major testable hypotheses regarding climate change (there are more than one), very roughly, is that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warming. Please provide some "controlled conditions" to model an entire planet?

Dyno wrote:I'm not a huge fan of Mises myself, but the critique is well constructed from that point of view at least.


It's really not. I'll start with one point: NASA temperatures are used, except they're not. They've used one small dataset, cherry picked from all possible data sets. This same trick (if you can call it that, and I haven't bothered checking their numbers) is used throughout.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:03 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:I discussed the methodologies of two papers so far, the methodology of these two are not much better and suffer from the same problems. Let's discuss the methodology now.
Ok. Discuss.
Dyno wrote: don't consider societies or organisations to be scientists, they follow a different logic. I don't believe that knowledge can be improved by committees.
And I wouldn't either, but take a look at those names. These aren't all 'Global Warming Is Going to Kill us All Advocacy', these are organizations of scientists that have released their own statements. It doesn't count for as much as actual research to be sure.
Dyno wrote:The big problem with AGW-supporters is that they seemingly fail to understand that the key in science is not proof, and being only understandable to "experts" is not a virtue, and unanimity of opinion among these experts is often an indication of fuzzy theories.
Huuuh? You have this backwards; climate scientists are presenting their findings, and drawing conclusions from the data, and deniers are failing to understand that proof (i.e., data), which is quite literally all that is key in science, cannot be cherry picked or ignored by non-scientists to support their errant world views. The AGW deniers are right that it is important for scientists to be able to communicate their data, especially when the entire field agrees on it, but the deniers are 100% wrong in that they think their lack of understanding, or rather, cherrypicking of the data somehow disproves actual scientists findings.

Dyno wrote:Science is about postulating a falsifiable theories which tells us something we would have known absent that theory, and which repeatedly fails to be falsified in risky tests in real world observations, preferably under controlled conditions.
Science is about taking data and making hypotheses based on the data. Making hypotheses, and then looking for data to fit that hypotheses (i.e., AGW denialism) is unscientific. Placing impossible null hypotheses isn't the mark of a poor theory, but the mark of a bad scientist. The science climatologists are getting up to is quite rigorous.

This is now for the fourth time what I'm trying to draw attention to as being a very deep seated issue in America today. No one tells their cardiologist that it wasn't a heart attack because the cardiologist didn't convince them of it, or that 9 out of 10 cardiologists are merely in on some scheme or that there's some critical data they don't understand about how hearts work so it couldn't POSSIBLY be a heart attack. It's honestly and truly bullshit that you think you can second guess actual scientists on this matter.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:11 pm UTC

I guess gravity is only pseudo-science then - experts are pretty unanimous that Newton's laws are close enough to how Physics works for day-to-day use - and Einstein's Theories of Relativity are enough to cover most of the remaining macroscopic motion where Newton isn't quite accurate enough.

If only I'd known that my science A-levels are actually pseudo-Science A-levels...

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:31 pm UTC

dawolf wrote:
Proof is absolutely key to science. The only key? No.


Nope, there is a reason why pseudo-science is defined as relying on proof rather than falsification. That's where the term pseudo-science comes from.

dawolf wrote:It's very understandable to non-experts as well. There are literally thousands of websites out there with explanations.


There are comments in this thread which claim the opposite, and rely on proof by jargon more often than not.

dawolf wrote: Ah! Bizarro world! I've missed you!


I'm going to rely on you to figure why that is the case, it is too complex an issue to discuss with someone who does not first show the inclination to think critically for himself.

Note things like String theory, which everyone agrees to not worry about agreeing what it means (there is no "consensus" interpretation), but focus on the reliability of the outcomes, versus something like nutritional science where everyone agrees that reducing fat intake is a good thing even when the results show that that likely is wrong.

dawolf wrote:Facts, scientific explanations and unanimity of opinion are key attributes of pseudo-science? You have this exactly backwards.


That's not precisely what I said, but basically, to a rough approximation, yes, those are some reliable indicators. Not facts themselves mind you, but claims of enhanced and definite knowledge of what constitutes facts and reliance on explanation rather than risky testing. In science the explanation comes after the results and is dispensable, not the other way around.

Do you know who coined the term pseudoscience and what the conditions were?

dawolf wrote:The scientific method depends on testable hypotheses. The major testable hypotheses regarding climate change (there are more than one), very roughly, is that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warming. Please provide some "controlled conditions" to model an entire planet?


That test even fails in being true historically. It can't be that simple.

The fact that you can't do controlled experiments in climate science is not my problem, and does not incline me to accepting claims of "facthood" any more seriously.

dawolf wrote:It's really not. I'll start with one point: NASA temperatures are used, except they're not. They've used one small dataset, cherry picked from all possible data sets. This same trick (if you can call it that, and I haven't bothered checking their numbers) is used throughout.



I have seen similar results using several datasets, SkepticalScience tends to counter this with they're own cherrypicked example and after the fact adjustments (another key hallmark of pseudo-science).

Note the "Model accuracy" section here http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-e ... -cold.html

This is the key section, yet they talk about a prediction made in 1988 using a chart that shows everything before 2000 as hindcasting. The need to adjusting predictions after the fact is far more damning to theory than cherry picking.

You can only cherry pick if the original theory failed to stipulate the data to be used in attempting to falsify it, which again is a weakness of the theory (a vagueness that is indicative of pseudoscience), not a strength as is sometimes claimed. If the prediction was a good one, you wouldn't be able to cherry pick one way or another.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:35 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:I guess gravity is only pseudo-science then - experts are pretty unanimous that Newton's laws are close enough to how Physics works for day-to-day use - and Einstein's Theories of Relativity are enough to cover most of the remaining macroscopic motion where Newton isn't quite accurate enough.

If only I'd known that my science A-levels are actually pseudo-Science A-levels...


You are confusing things.

No physicist will tell you that Newton's laws are "facts" about the world. I think you will also find that the key issues in modern physics relates to the problems with reconciling key concepts in the areas of general relativity and quantum dynamics.

You see? Physicists focus on the reliability of the results, not on claims of "truth" or "fact" of theories which are dispensable.

[It is a fact of the world that things behave in the ways Newton's theories describe under certain conditions, but Newton's theory is not a fact]

cwDeici
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:39 pm UTC

Why use so much mental resources talking to the wild ones when we could be discussing geoengineering? :(
(I guess the answer is that it is somewhat useful and necessary as well as (primarily) an emotional trap (a trap that affects both the unorthodox/insane and the conventional/sane.)

Please, someone lecture and rant to us about cool stuff instead of things for which there are varying high levels of scientific consensus...~
Last edited by cwDeici on Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:43 pm UTC

CPADave71 wrote:I would be very interested to see where this article has its facts wrong. This is as complete and seemingly well-sourced a takedown of the climate models as I've seen. It's convincing to me, and I'm sure to many, many others as well.

I'll second that PeteP's link does a good job taking down most of the claims, which are not actually particularly well-sourced. I wanted to point out one that's silly enough it's even shown by this comic, though: that there must be serious feedback dampening because the climate has been stable in the long term with no sign of runaway warming. But as the point labeled Cretaceous hothouse shows, the amount of temperature increase predicted is nowhere near outside the range of what can actually happen.

There is a reason Evans' arguments have only found a platform with the Financial Post and a free-market think-tank, but not in actual peer reviewed journals, though I imagine someone will be happy to tell me that's proof everyone is biased rather than simply having standards.

Dyno wrote:No physicist will tell you that Newton's laws are "facts" about the world.

Probably not, because that's such a weird way to put things. But most will tell you that Newton's laws give a good enough description that any other theory has to substantially agree with them in ordinary cases - the correspondence principle, as it's called. The Relativity of Wrong applies here; the arguments are not really about the basic results those laws give, but about refinements to them.

If those are our standards, scientists do disagree about anthropogenic global warming all the time. They disagree about particular features of models, over decimal places, over exactly how to treat human reactions, and things like that. They just don't disagree about some core features like that AGW is real, likely to be several degrees, and expected to cause certain types of damage, which is why those features are called a consensus.

Trying to pretend that level of agreement means something is wrong is pure sophistry. I mean, are you actually saying you'd trust the results more if there were a substantial number of scientists who disagree? Surely not, which means this is just a way to beg the question and label them untrustworthy regardless.

Dyno wrote:You can only cherry pick if the original theory failed to stipulate the data to be used in attempting to falsify it, which again is a weakness of the theory (a vagueness that is indicative of pseudoscience), not a strength as is sometimes claimed. If the prediction was a good one, you wouldn't be able to cherry pick one way or another.

If you know anything about modeling or statistics, you know that isn't really true.
Last edited by chenille on Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:55 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:50 pm UTC

chenille wrote: But most will tell you that Newton's laws give a good enough description that any other theory has to substantially agree with them in ordinary cases


Well there you put it in a nutshell.

AGW is really bad at what is actually happening, it doesn't describe reality. Even the model outputs diverge so much that it is hard to know if you couldn't just use dice-rolls instead of temperature measurements to produce similar predictions.

That's not a hallmark of a good theory, and completely dissimilar to the sorts of outputs Newton's theories give.

You talk of the relativity of wrong, I will give you "not even wrong", which describes this parlous state of affairs perfectly.

If you know anything about modeling or statistics, you know that isn't really true.


No, no, I don't.

If I predict that markets will go up indefinitely today, and then need to "adjust" the actual results of the markets to keep my theory true, that means my prediction was wrong as stated.

If someone can then subsequently pick out markets which, for whatever reason, failed to behave this way, it means that I failed to sufficiently constrain my prediction sufficiently to exclude those. Again, a weakness of my theory. A good prediction must stipulate these things at the time of prediction.
Last edited by Dyno on Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:05 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:If someone can then subsequently pick out markets which, for whatever reason, failed to behave this way, it means that I failed to sufficiently constrain my prediction sufficiently to exclude those. Again, a weakness of my theory. A good prediction must stipulate these things at the time of prediction.

A prediction about an average trend doesn't need to cover the behavior of every single data point, and so you can pick them to make it look like the prediction isn't working. Especially since a confidence interval that is shifting upward can still include points that shift downward in them. Sorry, claiming you can't cherry-pick if the prediction is good is simply untrue.

Dyno wrote:Even the model outputs diverge so much that it is hard to know if you couldn't just use dice-rolls instead of temperature measurements to produce similar predictions.

I don't think you can; I'd like to see you do so or provide a citation. Because from what I can tell, there is a lot of work into confidence intervals and statistical significance of climate change, and I'm not buying that it's all nonsense only on the say-so of someone disingenuous enough to claim people agreeing on something makes it suspicious.
Last edited by chenille on Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:24 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:... science ... being only understandable to "experts" is not a virtue ...

(Yes, that's a lot of ellipses, but I'd like to address the specific point. If you feel I'm misrepresenting you as result of the ellision, don't hesitate to say so and I will apologize.)

Anyways, this is something of a pet peeve of mine. Yes, I'm familiar with the quotes about the importance of being able to explain science to five-year-olds, but unless we're talking about comprehension in a very broad, top-level sense, I just don't agree on it. I mean, oh sure, being difficult for a layperson to understand isn't a virtue, I'm just not overly convinced that it's much of a vice.

Consider, as an example, atomic theory. It's all well and good to say that electrons exist as clouds of statistical probabilties. While that's probably beyond the average child, I think it wouldn't be too hard for a layperson to understand what that's saying. But if they want to know *why* something so unintuitive might be true or how it would really work? You'd very quickly get into math that the average layperson would need at least a couple of years of hard and unnecessary work to really be able to follow. Even with the Bohr model of the atom, you're not going to *really* understand what it says and why it was so important without a proper mathematical treatment. (Simply describing it as a planetary model grossly oversimplifies what's really going on with it.) And that full mathematical treatment is going to be rather obscure to the average layperson.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:07 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote: But if they want to know *why* something so unintuitive might be true or how it would really work? You'd very quickly get into math that the average layperson would need at least a couple of years of hard and unnecessary work to really be able to follow. Even with the Bohr model of the atom, you're not going to *really* understand what it says and why it was so important without a proper mathematical treatment.


No, that's upside down.

Nobody knows why anything is the way it is. Explanations are just nice stories. What matters are that the results are reliable and the story we tell makes some sort of sense.

How we came to be able to predict that result is, and should be, hard to understand. If it were easy for the layman to understand it would not be surprising and therefore not very useful.

Saying that outcome, or the reason for it, is hard to understand is at best a cop-out and at worst just plain nonsense.

masonwheeler
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:18 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby masonwheeler » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:10 pm UTC

If you want to understand unanimity of opinion among scientists, if you want to really understand what it means, think of the most famous scientist of all time: Albert Einstein.

Now, Einstein may have won the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, but that's not what made him famous. What turned a relatively obscure Swiss researcher into the man whose very name is synonymous with genius was "E=MC2".

He took something that everyone knew to be true--Newton's laws of motion--and proved that there was, in fact, a hole in them. Isaac Newton was wrong. What everyone knew about the laws of motion was mistaken. And the reverberations from that discovery turned him into (in the popular consciousness at least) the greatest scientist who ever lived.

But the interesting thing about it is, for such a massive discovery, it really isn't all that significant most of the time. Isaac Newton was technically wrong, but he was right enough that it took centuries and a guy as smart as Einstein to figure out the problem with Newton's laws. We don't use relativity in our day-to-day lives for anything at all, except navigating by GPS. For almost anything an engineer is going to do on the ground or in the atmosphere, he'll use Newton's laws in his calculations, not Einstein's, because they're simpler and they're still accurate.

Given this, two things become immediately apparent when applied to climate change:

1) The concept of the overwhelming scientific consensus being all engaged in some sort of conspiracy to hide or distort the truth is laughably absurd. Scientists are humans too. They have egos. Who wouldn't want to be the next Einstein, to receive the glory and adulation that comes with proving beyond doubt that there's a problem with something that all the scientists believe is true?
2) Even if the next Einstein did show that there was a problem in our understanding of climate change, it's almost certain that that, like our understanding of the laws of motion, it wouldn't be a game-changing "everything you know is wrong" issue, and that the general theory would still be sound.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:14 pm UTC

chenille wrote:A prediction about an average trend doesn't need to cover the behavior of every single data point, and so you can pick them to make it look like the prediction isn't working.


An average of what though?

The only reason you can pick out at the end is because "average" is a poorly defined term in this case.


chenille wrote:I don't think you can; I'd like to see you do so or provide a citation. Because from what I can tell, there is a lot of work into confidence intervals and statistical significance of climate change,


I can assure you, no citation required. Take a coin. Do a hundred (say) tosses one hundred times (more if if you want more resolution). Then discard the runs which fails to match your assumption that CO2 rising will monotonically increase temperature.

I can assure you that it is extremely unlikely that you will fail to produce runs that look like the AGW model runs.

chenille wrote: and I'm not buying that it's all nonsense only on the say-so of someone disingenuous enough to claim people agreeing on something makes it suspicious.


That's not quite what I meant though.

Everybody agrees that Newton's laws are valid. [results]
Nobody agrees on what,precisely, it is that makes them valid. [explanation]

See the difference?

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:17 pm UTC

masonwheeler wrote:Given this, two things become immediately apparent when applied to climate change:

1) The concept of the overwhelming scientific consensus being all engaged in some sort of conspiracy to hide or distort the truth is laughably absurd. Scientists are humans too. They have egos. Who wouldn't want to be the next Einstein, to receive the glory and adulation that comes with proving beyond doubt that there's a problem with something that all the scientists believe is true?
2) Even if the next Einstein did show that there was a problem in our understanding of climate change, it's almost certain that that, like our understanding of the laws of motion, it wouldn't be a game-changing "everything you know is wrong" issue, and that the general theory would still be sound.


No, you cannot simply state off-handedly that AGW is similar to Newton's laws. They are chalk and cheese.

Newton's laws meet none of the defining features of pseudoscience, AGW does.

So the comparison is entirely invalid before it even starts.

masonwheeler
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:18 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby masonwheeler » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:24 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:Newton's laws meet none of the defining features of pseudoscience, AGW does.


Puh-leeze. That sound bite was thoroughly discredited waaaay back on page 1. Are you even paying attention?

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:46 pm UTC

masonwheeler wrote:Puh-leeze. That sound bite was thoroughly discredited waaaay back on page 1. Are you even paying attention?


You say that all you like, it doesn't make it true.

You can go through the defining characteristics of pseudoscience as it was originally defined and tick every single box as it applies to AGW theory.

If you want to redefine pseudoscience, that's fine, but don't labour under the illusion that I made it up or that it is some lightweight idea. The task that you are setting yourself is far harder than I think you can imagine.

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:I can assure you, no citation required. Take a coin. Do a hundred (say) tosses one hundred times (more if if you want more resolution). Then discard the runs which fails to match your assumption that CO2 rising will monotonically increase temperature. I can assure you that it is extremely unlikely that you will fail to produce runs that look like the AGW model runs.

Indeed, so you understand how cherry-picking can be used to create a result. Do you understand how people determine results without doing that? It doesn't sound like you do, when you've said things like that cherry-picking can't change good results, and accused things like skeptical science of it when they're using more robust and multiple data sets. Because those aren't the same thing.

So let me make this plain: climate science looks nothing like what you just described, it's a huge defamation of any number of scientists to claim that, and it's something you haven't given an iota of evidence for beyond your say-so. Since you've proven yourself a much less reliable source than all the scientists you're casually dismissing, who do back up what they do in a large number of reviewed articles, that's not good enough.

But sure, keep shouting "pseudoscience" as if that word establishes everyone else as wrong on its own, instead of considering the possibility that maybe the entire research community aren't the ones who are misunderstanding modeling and statistics.

Dyno wrote:Everybody agrees that Newton's laws are valid. [results]
Nobody agrees on what,precisely, it is that makes them valid. [explanation]
See the difference?

Not one that really applies to what you're saying. I mean, yes that's a distinction you can invent, but then most people also agree the moon orbits the earth because of gravity as described by Newton's laws. That's an explanation; are you going to pretend the general agreement makes that suspicious, too? Would you prefer if some people thought it wasn't gravity?

Because that's the serious problem here: the idea that more agreement on something makes it less trustworthy only works if you think that less agreement would make it more trustworthy. I'm assuming you don't, which makes this disingenuous question begging, and I can't believe anybody thinks it is a persuasive tactic.
Last edited by chenille on Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:08 pm UTC, edited 6 times in total.

CPADave71
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:51 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CPADave71 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:56 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:
CPADave71 wrote:http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

I would be very interested to see where this article has its facts wrong. This is as complete and seemingly well-sourced a takedown of the climate models as I've seen. It's convincing to me, and I'm sure to many, many others as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html Not based on the same article from him apparently but apparently he talked about similar things in it since they talk about many of the same topics so it might be helpful. (Btw notice how he for instance doesn't provide a source or support for the dampening in his first sceptic part? The 5 does not lead to a reference just a footnote. I don't know why you call it well sourced when many claims don't provide a source.)


Pete, in that footnote he described his methodology for backing into the sensitivity number, since it was not disclosed in the studies (according to him). Interestingly enough, your link agrees with him that the value of the multiple is approximately 3.

That number is EVERYTHING, it seems to me. If that multiple is right, and if there are no offsetting dampeners as temperature increases, then we're screwed. If it's too high, then maybe everything will be fine.

Regarding the accuracy of Hanson and the various IPCC projections, I don't know what to believe any more. I can find graphs that show the IPCC drastically overestimating the warming under every circumstance, and I can find some (adding in information that is "missing" from HADCRUT) that indicate that they're well within range of observations. You can tell from my quote marks that I find the missing information to be a bit dubious.

What about the ocean temperature readings from Argo? The narrative last year was "no, the surface hasn't warmed since 1998, but all the extra heat was trapped in the oceans." The readings he gives seem to refute that. I tend to believe he's right, because (in the absence of any real evidence of increased ocean heat) the narrative has gone back to "surface warming hasn't paused, the observed results happened to leave out the areas of the globe with the most warming."

rmsgrey
Posts: 3460
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:59 pm UTC

masonwheeler wrote:He took something that everyone knew to be true--Newton's laws of motion--and proved that there was, in fact, a hole in them. Isaac Newton was wrong. What everyone knew about the laws of motion was mistaken. And the reverberations from that discovery turned him into (in the popular consciousness at least) the greatest scientist who ever lived.

But the interesting thing about it is, for such a massive discovery, it really isn't all that significant most of the time. Isaac Newton was technically wrong, but he was right enough that it took centuries and a guy as smart as Einstein to figure out the problem with Newton's laws. We don't use relativity in our day-to-day lives for anything at all, except navigating by GPS. For almost anything an engineer is going to do on the ground or in the atmosphere, he'll use Newton's laws in his calculations, not Einstein's, because they're simpler and they're still accurate.


Actually, everyone knew about there being holes in Newtonian dynamics - what Einstein did was find a new theory that explained the gaps - and got it published with his name on. There were a number of people all groping toward Special Relativity and if Einstein hadn't got there first, one of them probably would have.

General Relativity is the big one to attribute to Einstein - the idea that what we think are straight lines aren't is genius, but it's also nothing to do with E=mc2

Einstein was brilliant, no question, but it wasn't because he took established orthodoxy and overthrew it, but because he figured out the missing piece of the puzzle before anyone else did.

silent_cal
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:56 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby silent_cal » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:02 pm UTC

How can a 4.5 degree change in average temperature cause an ice age when most places are usually more than 4.5 degrees above freezing?

(That's not a rhetorical question, I know there's a good answer, I just want to know what it is)

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:11 pm UTC

chenille wrote: I mean, yes that's a distinction you can invent


Except that I didn't invent the distinction, I am merely informing you that it exists and it is central to how pseudoscience is defined.

If you want to argue that Popper was wrong and what he described as pseudoscience was actually good science (and that all the rest of 20th century philosophy of science that followed was wrong) then be my guest, but you can't simply change the definition to the exact opposite of what it was defined as and pretend that I am the loony heretic here.

My position is standard one.

You are the one trying to overthrow the orthodoxy with better credentials.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby PeteP » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:16 pm UTC

CPADave71 wrote:
PeteP wrote:
CPADave71 wrote:http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

I would be very interested to see where this article has its facts wrong. This is as complete and seemingly well-sourced a takedown of the climate models as I've seen. It's convincing to me, and I'm sure to many, many others as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html Not based on the same article from him apparently but apparently he talked about similar things in it since they talk about many of the same topics so it might be helpful. (Btw notice how he for instance doesn't provide a source or support for the dampening in his first sceptic part? The 5 does not lead to a reference just a footnote. I don't know why you call it well sourced when many claims don't provide a source.)


Pete, in that footnote he described his methodology for backing into the sensitivity number, since it was not disclosed in the studies (according to him). Interestingly enough, your link agrees with him that the value of the multiple is approximately 3.

That number is EVERYTHING, it seems to me. If that multiple is right, and if there are no offsetting dampeners as temperature increases, then we're screwed. If it's too high, then maybe everything will be fine.

3 is the value he is arguing against 0.5 is the value he proposes. I refer to footnote 5. Though I named that in my last post so maybe you mean it. If so he does not support his value there he simply says it is somewhere between 0.25 and 0.9 so he uses 0.5 without backing that range up.

masonwheeler
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:18 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby masonwheeler » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:35 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Actually, everyone knew about there being holes in Newtonian dynamics - what Einstein did was find a new theory that explained the gaps - and got it published with his name on. There were a number of people all groping toward Special Relativity and if Einstein hadn't got there first, one of them probably would have.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. History turns on some very small hinges sometimes. In fact, it it hadn't been for James Maxwell's highly unfortunate case of stomach cancer, we would almost certainly have had Relativity about 40 years earlier.

This is why Planck's theory about scientific progress bugs me: the very thing he claimed is the true driver advancing the cause of science (scientists dying off) was what set back the progress of science in his own area by an entire generation.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:49 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote: But if they want to know *why* something so unintuitive might be true or how it would really work? You'd very quickly get into math that the average layperson would need at least a couple of years of hard and unnecessary work to really be able to follow. Even with the Bohr model of the atom, you're not going to *really* understand what it says and why it was so important without a proper mathematical treatment.


No, that's upside down.

Nobody knows why anything is the way it is. Explanations are just nice stories. What matters are that the results are reliable and the story we tell makes some sort of sense.

How we came to be able to predict that result is, and should be, hard to understand. If it were easy for the layman to understand it would not be surprising and therefore not very useful.

Saying that outcome, or the reason for it, is hard to understand is at best a cop-out and at worst just plain nonsense.

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "why". That is, of course, my fault as I misspoke slightly. Please replace my previous statement with "why we might think that something so unintuitive might be true". In all sincerity, the average layperson will have to take the idea of electrons existing as clouds of probability as a matter of faith. You might be able to explain the outcome (although even then, there are cases where it's only sort of - again I feel the Bohr model of the atom is a good example here), but there is plenty of good, very hard science (note that I'm not specifically talking about AGW here) that is genuinely difficult to understand and requires considerable background that the average layperson does not, and should not have (as they have no need or desire for it).

Dyno wrote:
chenille wrote:I don't think you can; I'd like to see you do so or provide a citation. Because from what I can tell, there is a lot of work into confidence intervals and statistical significance of climate change,


I can assure you, no citation required. Take a coin. Do a hundred (say) tosses one hundred times (more if if you want more resolution). Then discard the runs which fails to match your assumption that CO2 rising will monotonically increase temperature.

I can assure you that it is extremely unlikely that you will fail to produce runs that look like the AGW model runs.

That is one *hell* of an accusation to levy. I'm afraid that yes, if you're going to accuse climate scientists of wide-spread fraud, you certainly *are* going to have to provide some sort of actual evidence. The idea that you can doctor up results yourself is considerably less than compelling evidence that they are doing so.

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:12 pm UTC

I was going to make a point about how science is a process for gathering knowledge, but Dyno covered that better than I could have. Scientific consensus does not obviate dissident views by virtue of existing. Science operates on the data. But since this has been well-trodden in this thread, I want to look briefly at the data of the consensus itself:

'97% of Climate Change scientists believe in AGW' is a commonly-cited fact; I've seen that exact statistic (without much deviation) many times in this thread. It comes from the paper "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" by David Cook et al. From the abstract:

Cook et al. wrote:We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.


David R. Legates et al. published a study on the study called "Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change". From their abstract:

Legates et al. wrote:However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.


As both papers are behind paywalls, I will content myself with quotes about the studies.

William Briggs, one of Legates' coauthors wrote:"In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably."


Anthony Watts, who disputes AGW wrote:"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."


[Both of the above found on Anthony Watt's blog, in the post "Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors"]

Andrew Glikson (who does not believe in AGW) conducted email interviews with 7 scientists with papers cited in the Cook et al. paper in "97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them" on a blog post on Popular Technology. All 7 said that they believed the Cook paper did not accurately represent their own papers.

Andrew Glikson wrote: "Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors."


Dr. Nicola Scafetta wrote:"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."


Dr. Nir J. Shaviv wrote: Nope... it [The Cook paper] is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."


Dr. Richard S. Tol wrote:Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"


Tentative conclusion: That 97% of Climate Scientists endorse the AGW theory is false.

*Kat*
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:36 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby *Kat* » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
*Kat* wrote:And, if you have time could you please give the non-science-y people among us a for Dummies overview of what has y'all so utterly convinced that
1) The Climate is changing.
2) This change is man-made.
3) This change can be reversed.
4) Also, what happens if we don't reverse it? You keep implying dire consequences but haven't enumerated any of them.

This is a sincere request. I'm not stupid but as I've said before, I'm not a science person. I'm a history and anthropology person. Historically the Earth has warmed and cooled many times over the millennium of human's existence. Anthropologically there is a tendency among Man to blame problems we can't solve on things that we can control. In the distant past Global Warming would of been attributed to unhappy gods which in turn would of been blamed on inadequate worship


First of all +1 to everything Diadem said.

Point the second, you can easily persuade yourself that the climate is changing. Look at sea level rise, mass balance of the ice sheets, habitat change, melting of permafrost, or just look at temperatures:

Image

Point the third, we know the change is man-made for many reasons, but the simplest is that we know we are raising the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and we know -- and have known for over 200 years -- that this warms the climate:

Image

The changes are mostly not reversible, but it's not a binary process, it's analogue. More greenhouse gases, more problems. Less, better. It's that simple.

Your final point is what the comic is about. I could enumerate to you all of the terrible consequences we can anticipate from 4.5C of warming, but in fact, you can demonstrate the problem to yourself much more simply than that. Are we dependent on the climate to live? Yes, among other things we have to grow our food. In the time we have been living in cities and growing our food, has the world ever seen a temperature swing like this, in two centuries from +0 to, as Munroe puts it, +1IAU? No, not even close. We don't know exactly how that world will unfold, but it cannot possibly be a safe thing to try.


Okay so...the climate may be warming up. And fair point about the fourth question. I was falling asleep as I typed it last night and I knew there was something wrong with it but couldn't remember what. My bad.

But in regards to your answer to my second question, I read the link but all I see are a lot of correlations, and that's not the same as causation. Your CO2 chart is making use of two different types of data and treating them as though they are the same. How do you know that CO2 in the air at the poles isn't naturally higher than it is in the ice? How do we know that it hasn't always been significantly higher? Maybe that's basic science but again I haven't immersed myself in Science the way you have.

I saw mention of a model elsewhere in this thread. One that had already correctly predicted a number of events. Is there a link to it?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

*Kat* wrote:I read the link but all I see are a lot of correlations, and that's not the same as causation.
Yes, but we know how the causation works, because we know how different gases interact with EM radiation.

How do you know that CO2 in the air at the poles isn't naturally higher than it is in the ice? How do we know that it hasn't always been significantly higher?
We know the rate at which water and ice trap bubbles and absorb CO2, and we use that rate to reconstruct past CO2 levels from ice cores. It's not and never has been a simple, "Well this ice is x% CO2 so the air must have been exactly x% CO2 at the time when this layer was put down."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:41 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:That is, of course, my fault as I misspoke slightly. Please replace my previous statement with "why we might think that something so unintuitive might be true". In all sincerity, the average layperson will have to take the idea of electrons existing as clouds of probability as a matter of faith.


Absolutely not.

There is no reason to believe it is true. All it is is a good description of a very reliable theory.

Nobody knows what electrons actually are in the metaphysical sense you are implying, and science certainly doesn't care. The "clouds of probability" is simply a way of envisioning it that is consistent enough with the theory to be passable.

If you believe electrons are elephants and your belief makes you impute incorrect behaviours to electrons, well that's a different matter. But science neither requires nor expects explanations to be true to have validity. Theories are not explanations, they are systematic accounts of behaviours.

Dyno wrote:That is one *hell* of an accusation to levy. I'm afraid that yes, if you're going to accuse climate scientists of wide-spread fraud, you certainly *are* going to have to provide some sort of actual evidence. The idea that you can doctor up results yourself is considerably less than compelling evidence that they are doing so.


Don't go jumping overboard, I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I merely said you can produce the results by tossing a coin and discarding results which are inconsistent with other expectations of your choosing. There is no need to even cherry pick, if a hundred people did the same experiment something on the order of 25 of them will produce the desired result without discarding anything at all.

All that I am saying is that simply being able to produce a prediction like this is meaningless if it is not specific enough to be risky and is only weakened when it is saved from falsification by continual adjustments after the fact.

An average of a range of graphs with generally upward trends and a internal inconsistency among themselves far larger than the purported effect is not exactly hard hitting stuff. It is certainly in no way comparable to the cloud of probabilities of an electron, which can be tested and retested million upon millions of times with excruciating precision under carefully controlled conditions.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:09 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:That is, of course, my fault as I misspoke slightly. Please replace my previous statement with "why we might think that something so unintuitive might be true". In all sincerity, the average layperson will have to take the idea of electrons existing as clouds of probability as a matter of faith.


Absolutely not.

There is no reason to believe it is true. All it is is a good description of a very reliable theory.

Nobody knows what electrons actually are in the metaphysical sense you are implying, and science certainly doesn't care. The "clouds of probability" is simply a way of envisioning it that is consistent enough with the theory to be passable.

If you believe electrons are elephants and your belief makes you impute incorrect behaviours to electrons, well that's a different matter. But science neither requires nor expects explanations to be true to have validity. Theories are not explanations, they are systematic accounts of behaviours.

You're arguing my own point for me. The mathematical treatments of the theories are useful. The explanations aren't. All I'm saying is that the explanations are the most the average layperson's going to be able to deal with without a great deal of background work. (And hence, that the extent to which the general public (versus experts) is able to understand a scientific theory is largely irrelevant to the theory's validity. What matters is "does it provide meaningful, consistent results in the context it's intended to be used". Again, let me emphasize here that this little digression of mine is not specifically about AGW.)

Again though, I'm definitely not 100% today. The failures in communication (such as your thinking I'm focusing on metaphysical meanings) are likely my own fault, and I apologize.

Catprog
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:53 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Catprog » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:19 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:Science is about postulating a falsifiable theories which tells us something we would have known absent that theory, and which repeatedly fails to be falsified in risky tests in real world observations, preferably under controlled conditions.


You mean such as
-If the sun is warming then the upper atmosphere would be warming. If more heat was being trapped by CO2 the upper atmosphere would be colder due to less heat reaching it?

-Or more greenhouse gases would lead to less IR measured by satellites in the bands they absorb.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:27 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:You're arguing my own point for me. The mathematical treatments of the theories are useful. The explanations aren't. All I'm saying is that the explanations are the most the average layperson's going to be able to deal with without a great deal of background work.


Ah, yes.

But that's the thing, a group of scientists who have convinced themselves that an explanation for what they think should happen is correct is very weak when what they think should happen doesn't happen in a way which is commensurate with the generally accepted standards of science (which it isn't).

At that point, the fact that climate scientists have some special secret understanding that makes everything okay is really not going to sell anything or make the case any stronger.

Make a risky, well-defined, specific prediction, then stick to it. Then I, for one, will jump on board in a heartbeat, if that means anything.

Dyno
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Dyno » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:31 pm UTC

Catprog wrote:
Dyno wrote:Science is about postulating a falsifiable theories which tells us something we would have known absent that theory, and which repeatedly fails to be falsified in risky tests in real world observations, preferably under controlled conditions.


You mean such as
-If the sun is warming then the upper atmosphere would be warming. If more heat was being trapped by CO2 the upper atmosphere would be colder due to less heat reaching it?

-Or more greenhouse gases would lead to less IR measured by satellites in the bands they absorb.


Those things are not really what is at issue.

The only real issues are:

1) The roughly monotonic relationship between CO2 and average global temperature, with CO2 as the driver.

and

2) The dire negative consequences of a warmer planet.

The second is too fuzzy to even be properly treated scientifically on anything like a systematic enough basis to start making policy decisions on, so we can probably ignore it. That is not to say that nothing should be done about it if it is found to be a near enough certainty, but just that the idea that "warmer = badder" is not really a scientific question as such.

But the first is key, along with its corollary about the feedbacks from CO2 induced heating being very large, but one can take that as included.
Last edited by Dyno on Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:33 pm UTC

RMc wrote:Well, for starters, I wouldn't refer to their beliefs as "denialism" which are invariably "incorrect". That gets you nowhere.

Deniers don't post on forums because they're open to being informed.

-Crissa

masonwheeler
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:18 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby masonwheeler » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:54 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:and

2) The dire negative consequences of a warmer planet.

The second is too fuzzy to even be properly treated scientifically on anything like a systematic enough basis to start making policy decisions on, so we can probably ignore it.


Try telling that to residents of New Orleans, New York, or any number of pacific islands that are currently in the process of being eroded by rising sea levels.

masonwheeler
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:18 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby masonwheeler » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:00 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
RMc wrote:Well, for starters, I wouldn't refer to their beliefs as "denialism" which are invariably "incorrect". That gets you nowhere.

Deniers don't post on forums because they're open to being informed.

No, they do it because they're angry, because (for many of them, at least,) sound science strikes at the very core of their identity.

The problem, like so many today, has its roots in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I don't think that anyone, whether they agree or disagree with Rand's philosophies, would say I'm misrepresenting her when I say that one of her most fundamental core principles is the concept that having people in general act in their own self-interest is good, both for them and for society in general, and having governments intervene and restrict people from doing so is inherently harmful.

The problem is, climate science is demonstrating conclusively that the unbridled pursuit of self-interest is causing (and leading up to) immense harm, and the only effective way to curb it before things reach a crisis-level tipping point of apocalyptic significance is government intervention. And so people who've been brainwashed by Rand look at that, and their heads explode. It can't possibly be true, therefore let's figure out why it's not true. Make the evidence fit the conclusion any way we can! (Which is, of course, the exact opposite of science.)
Last edited by masonwheeler on Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Seli
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Seli » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:04 pm UTC

Dyno wrote:...

Well there you put it in a nutshell.

AGW is really bad at what is actually happening, it doesn't describe reality. Even the model outputs diverge so much that it is hard to know if you couldn't just use dice-rolls instead of temperature measurements to produce similar predictions.

That's not a hallmark of a good theory, and completely dissimilar to the sorts of outputs Newton's theories give.
...

You are mixing up some levels here.
Newton's theories are quite good, they give a general description of the trajectory of a cannonball. To get to detail though you'll have to model a lot of different forces.

Climate change models work the same. The general description is fine and describes in large terms what we observe. The devil is in the details, but that in no way means the underlying model is wrong.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 18 guests