Climate Change: Fact, Fiction, Something in Between?

[skinnyninja]

There's an elitist undercurrent to this particular issue that is really off-putting.

I agree that it sounds elitist, but it is also a cue that I can learn something. These people are typically much smarter than I am. Not only that but they are dedicated to the science, whereas I have done zero research.

Some of Jacob's interviews about it prompted me to investigate it more.

Unfortunately I agree with the idea that not much can be done. We are on this big cruise boat called "consumption and profit" and we will never turn the boat around fast enough to avoid the future ramifications, whatever those may be......

[BattlaP]

Evolution is a theory. We've had 150 years of science that backs it up, but we haven't documented one lifeform evolving into another, yet.

Sounds like someone hasn't read The Greatest Show on Earth.

Depending on your definition of 'different life form' (a goalpost that can be arbitrarily placed and continuously moved depending on how stubborn one is), you can observe evolution in action in gardening, pet breeding, medicine, complicated experiments involving small fish & predators, certain species of birds, the fossil record and the list goes on.

It's difficult to express how utterly correct the theory of evolution is. It's the standard against which all other models should be measured and to anyone except those with a clear agenda the evidence literally surrounds us.

One of my favourite examples is a bird whose territory wraps around the whole planet, gradually changing but still 'classified' as the same species. Where the two ends meet, the two, now slightly different, groups of birds will not interbreed (which is one arbitrary definition of a different species).

[Riggerjack]

@jacob well, i am a layman, who hasn't taken a science class in 25 years, so i'm ok with using laymen terms.

@battlap what bird is that? i married into a family of cultists, i'd love to give them an example when the subject comes up.

when it comes to science, i never thought there was an "utterly correct" solution, the answer to it all. science is a refining process, by which we slowly remove the impurities in the knowledge we have of the world around us. nobody asks if you believe in gravity, be cause the body of knowledge is pretty sound and measurable and demonstrable.

we do talk about belief in evolution, because there is a significant body of people highly resistant to the idea, and it isn't so unquestionably demonstrable and measurable. for what it's worth, i have zero doubts about evolution. i use it as an example, because there is a body of evidence and a century and a half of track record, and science all points one way, but it still comes down to a question of belief.

and global warming is less established than evolution.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I don't think it has anything to do with the quality or quantity of evidence. Rather I think it's exactly like Jacob said: in the case of both evolution and climate change, science has merely gotten on the bad side of the established dogmas of religion and growth/consumption, respectively. That is the one and only reason there is any "debate" at all.

[Chad]

I can't even believe we have to discuss this.

@Chad, not to pick a fight, but that response is exactly what I'm talking about. If someone were to ask a basic question about budgeting or how the stock market works on the forum, people would take the time to explain it or point them toward the right resources. They wouldn't assume they should already know. But on this question, everyone just dismisses it as absurd that someone isn't on board yet. Why is that?

There's an elitist undercurrent to this particular issue that is really off-putting.

The reason I don't think it's worth discussing is all the best information suggests it is happening. Until the time that there is new information, it's not worth talking about because one side is arguing with data and the other is arguing with belief. Jacob has explained this better than I can.

[Tyler9000]

The reason I don't think it's worth discussing is all the best information suggests it is happening. Until the time that there is new information, it's not worth talking about because one side is arguing with data and the other is arguing with belief. Jacob has explained this better than I can.

All the data says that human behavior is heating the atmosphere. If one accepts that at face value, the reasonable follow-up question is "so what?"

Over all of global climate history, through ice ages and tropical maximums much hotter than today, why is the temperature today the perfect one that we have decided must be maintained through extreme measures? Do the proposed solutions (global redistribution or wealth, carbon rationing) even address the stated problem expressed in the data, and if so, are they properly proportional to the problem? How will we know our solutions are working and not creating disastrous side effects? And are there more pressing ecological problems deserving more attention right now?

Termites emit 10x the amount of carbon dioxide annually than all human sources combined. http://tinyurl.com/mozmkll If we are truly on the precipice of ecological collapse due to CO2 levels, why is calling the Orkin man off limits but a Kyoto Protocol global carbon trading scheme set to transfer billions from the US to third world dictators based on a 1990 "perfect temperature" ideal (selected to maximize monetary transfers to eastern Europe based on their carbon emission levels after the cold war) the most urgent thing we have to do RIGHT NOW?

People are skeptical about global warming not because they distrust science. They are skeptical because the hyperbole in the completely unscientific doomsday predictions is palpable and the proposed solutions are transparently political. Snake oil salesman like Al Gore who are awarded with Oscars for powerpoint presentations live the lifestyle of the top 0.0000001% jetting off to carbon conferences in Rio while preaching that the rest of the world should adopt immediate austerity to save the planet from imminent doom. Any casual google search of Climategate provides a smorgasbord of political corruption and back-room dealing even in the climate scientist community, such as actively excluding any dissenting scientists from peer review boards and smearing scientists who do not fall in line. The actions of the environmental elite do not match their words. So it is reasonable to question what they are selling.

Belief cuts both ways. One can believe the data supporting anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and reject that it matters to the degree politicians and corporate interests such as Gore's GIM (a carbon trading company) want us to believe it does. Likewise, some people cling to the doomsday scenarios as an article of faith and cannot accept their belief is overblown.

[anomie]

Public Opinion (fwiw) of Climate Change as of June 2013

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -a-threat/




So glad there is nothing to worry about!

[Tyler9000]

I don't think it has anything to do with the quality or quantity of evidence. Rather I think it's exactly like Jacob said: in the case of both evolution and climate change, science has merely gotten on the bad side of the established dogmas of religion and growth/consumption, respectively. That is the one and only reason there is any "debate" at all.

I would argue the opposite for climate change -- aspects of religion have gotten in the way of science. When the only acceptable solution is social change, that's a pretty good sign the movement is taking a left turn off of the original rails. That's why Patrick Moore left the organization he founded -- Greenpeace.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0657033391

(If you get a paywall, just Google "Why I Left Greenpeace".)

[jacob]

The answer to "so what?"...

Yes, temperatures have been both higher and lower in the past, however, at the time we did not have a human population of 7.1 billion to feed and we did not have a vast infrastructure of coastal cities; homes that needing heating or cooling; the insurance costs of extreme weather (hurricanes, wildfire, lack of rain for drinking water); and the migration patterns that result from that. So the answer as to why the temperature/climate today is the perfect one is that we built our entire civilization around the currently quality and quanity of weather, food, and freshwater. If those change, then our civilization will be forced to change with it. This will be expensive.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-ani ... arming.htm
If animals and plants can't adapt, can the humans who eat said plants and animals adapt?

How do we know whether solutions are proportional to the problem?
If we accept that the models are correct, then we can also check to see what would happen if we reduce CO2 emmissions. We can even say when we have emitted so much that we reach an inflection point from which it becomes impossible to go back.
We can also calculate the cost of these solutions (1% of GDP) and the projected expenses if nothing is done (higher). Now implementing such solutions will benefit some companies and hurt others. I understand there's politics associated with that. However, it's an incredibly long stretch to claim that science has been made up simply so that Al Gore can trade carbon credits.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lim ... ediate.htm

Termites are carbon neutral.
The natural carbon cycle itself vastly larger than the human contribution. The problem is that natural cycle takes as much CO2 out as it puts in. The human contribution puts CO2 (by burning underground carbon sources that were not part of the cycle) in but doesn't take it out.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm

Al Gore, Climategate, peer review, skeptics,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore ... errors.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic ... s-ipcc.htm

On religion getting ahead of science.
Science is what it is. Personal opinions in science are rooted out. The problem is that the loudest voices are not actually discussing the science but the consequences of what the science says. There are many possible solutions to climate change.
0) Preserve the status quo. React to problems as they occur. The current strategy.
1) Social change, as you mention.
2) Lifeboat strategy. Close off borders against mass migration. Secure food supply. Go to war to establish security in the places of the world where food can still be grown. Ditto for water. Kinda like the model used for the world's energy supplies now.
3) Market solution. Trying to price the cost of the externalities and make it tradeable.
4) Policy solution. Put limits of CO2 emissions by multilateral convention.
5) Technological solution. Good luck with that.
6) Crazy Ivan solution. Emit aerosols from high altitude planes or balloons to blanket out the upper atmosphere to prevent 100% of the sun coming through. Any nation that can launch a weather balloon can unilaterally decide to do that.

Based on human history, I predict 0 will be followed by attempts at 3 and 4. These will fail. Meanwhile, hippies will argue for 1. 5 will fail to materialize. The powerful countries will eventually go for 2. Less powerful countries will opt for 6 and be called rogue nations by the former.

[Tyler9000]

Thanks for the info, Jacob. For the record, I never claimed that Gore made up science for profit. I only pointed out that he does profit from the thing he's promoting and that there are absolutely corporate and political interests on the green side as well.

I don't have the energy or desire to debate individual points. Here a few more alternative sites to the Skeptical Science links for anyone interested in drawing their own conclusions:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://junkscience.com/
http://www.iloveco2.com/

[Seneca]

Oh well, might as well published the whole list then.

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

A debate broke out on a work forum (pretty much all posters engineers) and I posted this exact link.

Someone responded with this one- http://randombio.com/co2.html

I think it's hard to sort through what is or isn't good data for all lay people unless you make a real project out of it, including people with scientific backgrounds. I know liberal leaning people with science degrees that are deniers.

For me personally, I've never made a project out of it. I have read enough things to become convinced, but I am sympathetic. If I do a simple lay person's base principles thought experiment and note we live in a relatively closed ecosystem, within which we are converting significant amounts of liquids and solids to heat and gas, I find it passes my personal basic "smell test" to expect man is indeed changing his environment, and likely not to the better.

Beyond that, I've never really found reason to quarrel with the basic individual solutions reached by the anthropogenic crowd. The original impetus for the thread was simply that consuming less than you make is better for the earth, whether intentional or not. Riding your bike to work is just plain good sense, save money, save time by turning commute time in to PT time, enjoy health benefits (instead of harm) over the same period etc etc. Buying lots of junk at Target that lasts 6mos and ends up in the landfill is a bad idea no matter what. Local food is usually better any way you look at it, especially tearing out grass and growing your own. Local power generation, renewable energy, local wastewater treatment all very wise on multiple levels. (Ponder for a moment, even the Marines are converting their bases to run on locally generated, renewable energy) Etc etc etc

I do start getting a bit more "anti" with some of the government solutions the global warming crowd is after, but that is a different discussion.

[jacob]

@Seneca - That article has some ... problems with oversimplification.

There's a limit to how much CO2 can be dissolved in the oceans. The relation is called the Revelle factor. The higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more CO2 in the oceans and the less they can absorp. It is NOT a constant relationship. Roughly speaking, if atm CO2 goes up 5% (which is about the 10 year rate) the ability to absorb more CO2 in the oceans goes down 5%. Furthermore if atmospheric CO2 decreases, due to sequestration, the oceans will release their CO2 back into the atm. Oceans are a very long term permanent sink insofar that dissolved CO2 (acid) reacts with limestone on the bottom of the oceans. This is why the coral reefs are dying btw.

Beer's law would be applicable IFF the absorption spectrum was constant. It is not! Therefore the analogy of piling on blankets fail. A better analogy would be in piling on blankets that did not have uniform thickness, that is, they're thick in some parts and thin in others. As more blankets are piled on, more and more of the thin areas get cumulatively thicker. This process (the increase of thin areas) is anything but logarithmic.

Hence, the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is wrong over the entire scale. It only holds linearly for small perturbations. Certainly when not doubling the input factors. Hence, calculating temperature increases based on an interpolation of wrong relationship is wrong.

Second, under refinements of the estimate, he uses 100 years of (CO2,T) pairs and then the (0,255K). So far so good. However, then he proceeds to fit random curves to this and finds that a hyperbola is the best fit. Really?!? My scientific head just exploded. While you can interpolate between data points (even as far removed as these) that way and sometimes get away with it, extrapolation is never ever a good idea. The relation between the these two variables are surely not as simple as a smooth curve would suggest. Fudging the starting point up to 271K is not adding anything when the method is specious already. In fact, this argument can be completely killed by adding a data point from the last ice age (180ppm, 275K). Try fitting that with a hyperbola ;-P

Third, all nonlinear effects are handily dismissed as being accounted for. The problem here is using data between years 1900 and 2000 and then assuming that all relationships in the climate stay exactly the same before extrapolating values out beyond that. This is why the empirical model sucks for prediction. Using simple time series analysis, I can make an even simpler model that fits a short period of data between 1900 and 2000. Everything stays constant. CO2 has zero effect. It'll look good on a graph too. If only it was that easy ... So secondary effects? The answer is more likely to be YES!!!

Fourth, he argues that the oceans act as a big temperature buffer which will further limit the atmospheric temperature increases. So what does this really mean? Well, it means that that heat evaporates the water with leads to water vapour. (Which also leads to extreme weather).

Speaking of which: Water vapour is the dominating green house gas. It is also quite dependent on the temperature. Hence additional CO2 causes additional water vapour which causes additional temperature, etc. If CO2 is the rudder, then water vapour is the ship. Now, you can't fiddle with the rudder and expect the ship to stay on the same course just because it did when the rudder wasn't turned much.

And then he pulls the random curve fitting trick again.

In conclusion, this is a great example of reaching wrong conclusions through oversimplifying. Simplifying assumptions are fine and good but when used one must be very careful to apply them to domains where they are valid. If he was trying to calculate what would happen if CO2 levels were to decrease 10%, the assumptions would be all fine and valid. However, using a narrow domain space and claiming that the physics that holds in that space is valid over the entire universe and subsequently making conclusions outside the domain space using a combination of simplified physical relations and statistical curve fits should pretty much trigger the BS detector of anyone who has worked with actual modelling.

[Seneca]

@Jacob- Appreciate the analysis of that link. I read it, thought "bullshit", but posted nothing.

I used to keep salt water reef tanks. Many lessons are learned in exactly how fragile the reef ecosystem is when you start trying to keep stony corals alive (much less get them to grow). One of the things you do is bubble CO2 into a calcium reactor (filled with crushed coral basically) to create a solution you slowly drip in to the tank to keep both the calcium (etc) levels up, and control PH as they are pulled out of the water by the living critters. ANY sort of mistake with this contraption would, within hours, wipe out the tank. (And this was the BEST option, Kalkwasser additions are another method, but it is ridiculously sensitive) The other thing about this was, it was difficult to detect problems without electronic PH monitoring, so you buy a PH probe and rig this up to a control loop for your reactor, automatically change CO2 levels in the reactor based on PH. This worked a ton better, but you learned, even when you detect it before visible effects, it can still quite tough to save your corals if there is any sort of problem.

[Ego]

Hypothesis: Practice makes perfect. Or, practice makes permanent. Either way, the practice of disregarding evidence makes one good at disregarding evidence. Practicing a belief that has little or no supporting evidence makes one better at believing other things that have no supporting evidence. It becomes a skill. That skill is transferable. If I practice disregarding evidence in one realm, it becomes easier for me to disregard evidence in other areas of life.

Those who pride themselves on their non-evidence-based decision making in one realm tend to hold additional, unrelated, non-evidence-based beliefs.

PDF: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~averin/drop/2111617.pdf
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publ ... evolution/

If the above hypothesis is true, would it not be wise to encourage critical thinking on even the most innocent non-evidence-based beliefs?

[GandK]

I agree with Jenny.

I believe - strongly - that it is always incumbent upon the speaker to make his point. When my husband speaks to a jury - irrespective of the facts of the case - it's not the jury's fault if he fails to argue the case in such a way that the jury accepts what he says and rules for his client. It is his fault. Every. Single. Time.

If climatologists (the speakers) want the public (the listeners) to not only understand but ultimately act upon the conclusions they are presenting about climate change, then they can't just throw facts at the public irrespective of the beliefs of those people. They have to tailor the argument to the audience in order to win public opinion and respect. They are the ones trying to prove a point because there is already a prevailing belief system in place that they are trying to overturn. The burden is on them. And to the extent that they stand back and insist that, damn it, the facts speak for themselves, and anyone who disagrees with a fact is an idiot, they will fail. And by fail, I mean that there won't be enough people who agree with them to make the sweeping policy changes needed in order for the public to overrule the aforementioned corporate selfishness.

What is endgame, after all?

[jacob]

The problem is that the audience is scientifically illiterate and are thus easily persuaded by rhetorical tricks. Now it could be that all it takes is a balancing effort comparable to that of the fossil fuel industry's think tanks that were used in the free-market/fossil fuel country (UK, US, and Australia) to obfuscate the issue to right the ship.

Note how only those countries have a significant percentage of deniers.

The question is whether the argument really needs to descend (sorry for being elitist here) to TV ads, posters, debate skills, and soundbites just because those are proven to work when it comes to people (most people really) who lack the specific understanding to have any way whatsoever of rationally judging this highly technical field.

I mean, what you're really asking is for the science community to bring every American up to at least an undergraduate level understanding of physics, biology, meteorology, geology, astrophysics, computational modeling, and scientific literacy.

That is, you're asking for the scientific community to do what most colleges fail to do despite having access to student brains for 2-4 years to 60% of the population.

I think that's a lot to ask. I mean, I'm very widely read (I've only known a couple of people to have read more than me) and I have a PhD in physics which is pretty much the most fundamental science and even I lack the knowledge to cover all these fields---I have to spend hours reading background information just to understand some of the simulations.

Can we expect this of Joe Public?

I doubt it. Therefore any "debate" will have to resort to psychology and rhetorical tricks.

This is why I'm NOT in favor of a public debate.

[jacob]

It may be that what's needed is that equivalent of the Scopes Money trial (and the subsequent equivalents). As far as I understand, the outcome of such debates really depend more on the lawyer representing---what they focus on in their argument and what the judges think (the zeitgeist+their scientific understanding) than the veracity of the underlying case---so I'm not sure whether gambling the 22nd century on the outcome of a few trials is the best approach.

[jacob]

This actually makes me wonder ... on a more general level (maybe a new thread is required) ... whether our current ruling system is the optimal given the complexities of a technology using civilization.

Direct democracy was used by the Greeks. This makes sense because everybody understood "life's complexities" and could make a sound decision. As the world became more complex, direct democracy was replaced by representative democracy. If you look at congresss, most of them have a legal or a business background. There are almost no scientists or technologists there. This is a big problem when it comes to matters of technology---which also, unlike the 18th century when that system was designed---is wholly inadequate. Maybe it's time to revamp the system and add a technocracy-layer just as a "representative"-layer was added once societies grew beyond city-size...

[GandK]

The question is whether the argument really needs to descend (sorry for being elitist here) to TV ads, posters, debate skills, and soundbites just because those are proven to work when it comes to people (most people really) who lack the specific understanding to have any way whatsoever of rationally judging this highly technical field.

Yes. Yes it does. Unless the only goal of the climatologists is creating debate. Debate can take place with only a handful of individuals. Sea change (NPI) requires the involvement of the masses. If we rule out the scientific education of voters as impossible - which I think we must - then the alternative is marketing.

Yes, I'm sorry to say it: scientists need to become better marketers. Especially when you consider that their findings run afoul of the business models of multi-billion dollar organizations who aggressively use the media to spin the hell out of their own positions. How much blame can we place on people with questionable levels of understanding who are subjected to such advertising blitzes, and then "don't get it" about global warming?

[Felix]

Interesting. If you take the influence propaganda, marketing and clever rhetoric have on humans as a given, does it mean that scientists have to engage in it to fight for the truth?

The argument for it would be that it seems to be the only way to get the point across. If the other side plays dirty, you play dirty, too. Otherwise you lose the debate to an opponent with the scientifically weaker -or even demonstrably wrong - position.

One could argue for this in terms of application in the public sphere.

The argument against it that I see is that you end up putting the science up for debate in a fight based on propaganda techniques.

The comparison would be fighting a holy war about who has the true god. The winner is the one with superior weaponry and warfare skills, not necessarily the one who has the true god.

The winner of the debate is the one who propagandizes better, not the one who actually has the science behind him. Engaging in a propaganda war would give legitimacy to the unscientific side.

The saying "Don't debate with idiots, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." comes to mind.

The question would be if this is something that cannot be avoided.

Jacob's answer would be to cut out the circus completely and simply just let those who have shown to have the required knowledge of the topic make the decision.