Climate Change: Fact, Fiction, Something in Between?

[steveo73]

@steveo

You aren't using the terms "fact," "theory," or "proof" as they are understood in scientific discourse. This is high school level terminology. If you want to have a serious discussion with PhD scientists you really need to at least meet them halfway on vocabulary. I'm kind of amazed no one has mentioned this.

This amazes me. I am clearly the one on this thread using facts and proof. My standards are significantly higher than anyone on here who is pro GW and its not close.

I'll add that a PhD means nothing to me. I judge people on their merits. I'm sure lots of pro GW "scientists" have PhD's and the PhD doesn't stop them lying through their teeth.

[steveo73]

Disagree. When you put peer-reviewed scientists in quotes, then you have no credibility, so I'm done.

I get it. You can't win factually and rationally so you resort to ad-hominen attacks.

It makes sense if you have no facts or proof to back up your points.

[jennypenny]

I find this site more palatable, and I like how they have the information divided up by how much knowledge a person has on the issue.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... tart-here/


I also like this site, especially if (like me) you like to know the history of the topic.
Index http://aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
List of Links http://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm

----

What I find frustrating is the way the science gets co-opted and used to promote political, economical, or moral positions. BOTH sides are guilty of this. Case is point is the current brouhaha over the moral implications of the IPCC report. The current emphasis is now on the "morality" of the issue, which is something each of us decides for ourselves, instead of the objective information in the report. I don't want an interpretation from any moral or political standpoint, I want to understand the current science. Unfortunately, that means I have to actually learn the science and read the reports for myself because very few experts seem capable of summarizing it without including their own biases.

An article on the "immorality of inaction"
http://theenergycollective.com/josephro ... le-impacts
An article criticizing the use of the word "immorality"
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/11 ... is-report/

Romm handed skeptics a talking point on a silver platter.


@jacob--I know you're going to argue that they've been presenting the information for years and it hasn't gotten them anywhere, and you may be right; but access to information has changed radically over the last 10-20 years. Information can be disseminated directly to individuals now. I just wish it wasn't so, I don't know, ... filtered, I guess.

[jacob]

@jennypenny - Of course I am. I'd strongly suggest anyone to watch the video above (and for a moment put their political leanings aside) both to see that presenting the science actually got them quite far and that until about the early/mid 1990s people (both politicians and laymen) understood the science the same way regardless as of their moral or political leanings. However, over the past 30 years the science has been "attacked" using the same methods that was successfully used against the link between cancer and smoking. As a result people have become a lot more ignorant. This is where the agnotology comes in.

Again, I strongly suggest watching that video.

[jacob]

@steveo

You aren't using the terms "fact," "theory," or "proof" as they are understood in scientific discourse. This is high school level terminology. If you want to have a serious discussion with PhD scientists you really need to at least meet them halfway on vocabulary. I'm kind of amazed no one has mentioned this.

We're painfully or maybe comically aware of it. I think I wrote a less polite expression about my frustrations with this above.

[jennypenny]

@jennypenny - Of course I am. I'd strongly suggest anyone to watch the video above (and for a moment put their political leanings aside) both to see that presenting the science actually got them quite far and that until about the early/mid 1990s people (both politicians and laymen) understood the science the same way regardless as of their moral or political leanings. However, over the past 30 years the science has been "attacked" using the same methods that was successfully used against the link between cancer and smoking. As a result people have become a lot more ignorant. This is where the agnotology comes in.

Again, I strongly suggest watching that video.

I watched the video.

Economic and political interests working very hard to confuse, disprove, or otherwise muddle scientific evidence to further their own interests isn't new. The smoking example wasn't the first either. I've mentioned the food pyramid/FDA/food industry before. They do the same thing. There are countless examples.

Oreskes also sounded naive when she referred to Luntz's work in republican political campaigns. Of course, political operatives try and gin up controversies that would benefit them. It's no different than liberals pointing to racism or a "war on women" even when it doesn't exist, because it appeals to their base. SOP in politics.

I'm not arguing the science with you. That video clearly demonstrates the point I was trying to make earlier. Oreskes' presentation is half facts and half commentary on politics/economics. Both sides mix the two together and it's getting us nowhere. That may have been what she was asked to talk about, so I'll give her a pass, but in general I think it's the wrong approach.

And the smugness doesn't help ("At least he got that fact right.") Public consensus about the science isn't the goal, it's only step 1. Afterwards, people will have to agree on policies to fix the problem. If one side has been made to feel idiotic for their previous 'beliefs', they won't be in a compromising mood when it comes to policy decisions.

*sigh* There's got to be a better way to do this.

[George the original one]

Evidence for the man-made portion is the "Keeling Curve", the measured CO2 concentration in the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Cu ... pr2013.svg

This is a classic example of the hysteria and non-science that is being produced via the pro GW "scientists".

Increased CO2 concentrations is a fact and is due to human activity.

Accelerated glacial melting is an unprecedented fact observed in the past 30 years.

Permafrost melting is an unprecedented fact observed in the past 15 years.

Antartic ice melting is an unprecedented fact observed in the past 25 years.

North polar sea ice melting is an unprecedented fact observed in the past 10 years.

Climate warming over the past 200 years is a fact and you've agreed to that.

[jacob]

@jp - Well, the first half the video is the scientific facts and history and the second half is the politics---specifically how the science was successfully politicized. The commentary or research into the denial movement (the second half) is how Oreskes (she's a science historian) made her name, so this was definitely what she asked to talk about. The first part was just a summary of "stuff we should all know". I posted the video because it seems appropriate for this thread. The first half covers the facts. The second half covers the fiction.

There might be a better way to do this.

The quick and easy solution would be for everybody to spend 10 hours actually studying the science w/o the politics. Now this information does exist in a widely accessible and politics-free format: textbooks.

Boom! Instant innoculation. Even a rudimentary scientific understanding of how the greenhouse effect works, what gases are involved, why the gas absorption spectrum matters, how the radiative IR spectrum of the surface interacts with the gases (this is the part steveo73 doesn't understand when he talks about CO2 and water vapor concentrations), and how positive feedbacks change the atmospheric absorption (he doesn't seem grasp the implications of this either despite quoting this very conclusion) will take care of the majority of the "skeptical objections" that are being thrown around and in fact make them look rather silly to boot. The remaining objections mainly concern esoteric details (red herrings) that have no impact on the much more important conclusions that follow from the above observations.

However, what the public relations experts and realized and what politicians know is that most people, surprisingly, don't spend their time reading textbooks or checking facts(!) It's simply not normal human nature. If I asked 100 people on the street what an absorption spectrum is (it's a simple thing, really!), I bet only a couple of them would be able to give a reasonable answer. Rather, they read the newspapers. Instead of reaching a conclusion based on study, they read an OpEd or more recently, they google it on the internet.

It's a human weakness and it's fully exploitable.

So here's how that works. You spread a bunch of lies (basically bald assertions) in the form of opeds and internet websites and claim they're facts (few people will check anyway, so you're safe from most people... if you get called out, just ignore it, and restate your assertion again). People will now adopt those "facts" and associate them strongly with their political opinion and thus with themselves. Furthermore, they will only consider statements common from pre-approved sources that match their beliefs and ignore statements from other sources.

Boom! Infected!

The science has now successfully been politicized or economized or personal valueized. This approach works against most kinds of science where the conclusions aren't in immediate plain sight. It wouldn't be possible to deny the existence of gravity or electricity for example. You can't deny that the earth is rounded either anymore, because airplanes. However, you could deny the moon landings or the big bang theory. All it would take would be a few hundred million bucks in funding and a number of years.

Now, if history is an indicator it takes decades for people to see through the obfuscation. The reason it takes so long is exactly because in order to change one's mind one would have to be continuously hit in the face by reality over and over (a sufficient number of personally experienced negative effects predicted by the science) until one hits the rock bottom of cognitive dissonance.

Arguments or logically building the case won't do it because that's not how most people get their understanding. It's not the default basis of human thinking.

I could write or post 10 pages of the scientific case. However, I know that the only people who will actually read it are those who already "believe" the science.

In conclusion, theoretically there is a better way. In practice, I don't see it. Also the kind of warfare is very asymmetric. The Gish Gallop of making up a bunch of unsubstantiated BS in rapidfire is a good example. It takes 5 minutes to write 20 unsupported assertions. It would take hours to refute them one by one. It then takes 0 minutes to ignore the refutation and simply restate the assertions (e.g. like steveo did above with the 1.6% and the 97%).

If you want to find a better way, I suggest starting with the asymmetric problem: How do you defeat a small group of determined people who don't abide by the standard rules (here reasonable debate).

This problem is also universal.

[steveo73]

I know you want to be the good guys here but its simply not true. There is no good guy and bad guy.

There are facts and there are distortions or facts. There is science and distortions of science. The GW proponents are clearly the ones stating something is a fact or proven when it isn't.

At this point enhanced GW has quite simply not been proven and the data is not matching the predictions of the "scientists". You can cry all you want over it but that is the reality.

Show some proof that you are right. I'll add that some people on this thread don't even understand the theory behind GW. If you don't even understand the theory I have no idea how you can state that it is proven.

I'd like to see one piece of validated scientific evidence that my points regarding the holes in the GW theory are incorrect. I'm using facts and science not the "facts" (ala then 97% statistic) and "science" ("our models state its true") of the GW proponents.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I'm not sure if I should apologize for starting this thread.

[George the original one]

> The GW proponents are clearly the ones stating something is a fact or proven when it isn't.

LOL, I just stated a bunch of facts and you're telling me that they're not!

[dreamdreamdream]

I used to be skeptical about AGW. One of my issues was that climate modeling isn't really "science" in the strictest sense. Specifically, science is not just about falsifiability, but also experimentation and repeatability, and we can't comprehensively test hypotheses about the earth's climate in some kind of laboratory experiment the way we can with mechanics or electromagnetism. I.e., we can't make various copies of the earth, try to isolate independent variables, and see what happens when we change them. So it's annoying if you're initially skeptical about the predictions and people tell you you're some kind of anti-scientific nut. I didn't (and don't) agree with that characterization. The scientific evidence for the validity of electromagnetism is contributed to constantly, basically every time we use a device engineered using its predictions. For climate modeling, tests of its predictions are far more spare, and there's nothing unnatural about subsequently trusting them less.

Another issue for me was the argument that most climate experts agree. For one thing, that's not really an argument -- communities of experts can certainly be united in their belief in something false. For another, there is a natural bias for members of a community to conform and keep their thinking within a spectrum of acceptability, lest they be punished with limited success within the community. I don't think scientific communities are immune to this.

Two things brought me around:

1) Realizing that the economic interests of large hydrocarbon producers and consumers are *much* larger and more coherent than that of climate researchers' interests in conforming to community consensus, and that the former group is powerful enough to wage an effective propaganda campaign in support of its interests -- and is in fact doing so (Donors Trust et al).

2) Thinking about the issue in a different context, where motivated reasoning might be avoided. Specifically, terraforming Mars. If we were to terraform Mars, what would be our first step? Dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Why? Because it's extremely well understood that this will increase surface temperature. Maybe a little more or less than we think, but that aside, any reasonably well-informed person would expect with virtually complete certainty that warming would be the result. Earth is more complex than Mars, for sure, but we are dumping a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (see graphs of ppm over the centuries), and the overall result is similarly simple and well understood. The only question is precisely how much warming and where.

[steveo73]

Even a rudimentary scientific understanding of how the greenhouse effect works, what gases are involved, why the gas absorption spectrum matters, how the radiative IR spectrum of the surface interacts with the gases (this is the part steveo73 doesn't understand when he talks about CO2 and water vapor concentrations), and how positive feedbacks change the atmospheric absorption (he doesn't seem grasp the implications of this either despite quoting this very conclusion) will take care of the majority of the "skeptical objections" that are being thrown around and in fact make them look rather silly to boot.

Jacob - lets try and cut the BS out of the picture here. I really think that we are on the same page but you are perverting the facts and the science.

This is the key point:-

1. CO2 does not have a direct impact on the temperature in its role as a greenhouse gas. I think we agree on this point. Can you please confirm ?
2. You are on the side that believes that there is a significant positive feedback in when CO2 rises it impacts other factors within the atmosphere and leads to increased temperatures. Lets be honest here - this is definitively unproven. Can you please confirm ?

I assume Jacob will basically refuse to budge and refuse to use facts and science.

There is a really easy way to end this debate though. Its very simple. All you do is state point 2 above is definitely not proven but we do have statistical models that are based on the "science". If the data matches the predictions we might not have proof but we do have something at the very least that we have to look into with some concern. Of course the flip side is also true. If the data is not matching the predictions of these models then we have to at the very least look at the "science" and re-assess our current hypothesis.

The facts (again note facts not "facts") are that the models that have been produced are not confirming the predictions. This is not debatable. Its a reality.

So this leaves us with a very clear position on where we are at now.

To sum up there is no proof with regards to man made GW.
1. The CO2 direct correlation argument is definitely not an issue.
2. The feedback mechanism is definitely not science and the hypothesis at this point is not being backed up by data. I admit it is still too early to write this hypothesis off however the early indications (note the last 20 years) are that the "scientists" have this wrong.

Just a quick note on the feedback mechanisms:-

Here I will show further evidence, from both climate models and satellite data, that this issue is so serious that it might well have caused climate modelers to mistakenly conclude that cloud feedbacks in the climate system are positive when in fact the evidence, when more critically examined, suggests they are negative.

Just to quote my source as this upset someone earlier:- "
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -evidence/"

The data may actually be proving that increased CO2 may lead to decreased temperatures.

Anyhoo - I think that sums up the science and the facts. Its fairly clear cut and there really is no need for anymore discussion. Its actually not that hard if you choose to focus on the facts.

[steveo73]

> The GW proponents are clearly the ones stating something is a fact or proven when it isn't.

LOL, I just stated a bunch of facts and you're telling me that they're not!

George - I have clearly articulated that there are several issues in what you are stating however I will do so again.

1. You argue that amount of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is a significant issue. The science states quite clearly that increasing CO2 does not have a significant impact on the temperature on the Earth in a direct fashion. Simply put increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does not significantly lead to increased temperatures. This is factual and clear cut.
2. You and others may believe that there are positive feedback mechanisms via increasing CO2 however this is quite simply not proven. Please note that this is Jacob's and the pro GW "scientists" hypothesis. In fact the data is stating that it is not a valid hypothesis however maybe we don't as yet have enough data to categorically deny the feedback mechanisms. We do though have enough data to state that this theory is appearing to be incorrect.

Now onto the next point. I think you actually have a new theory on GW. I don't really have enough understanding of your theory to critique it. I think its best if you outline your theory though because it is a far cry from the mainstream theory related to GW.

[IlliniDave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg

Here's a "civil" debate, where you can see the sides simply talking past each other after a certain point. This thread is so long I don't know if this has been linked or not, but one of these guys is at the forefront of some of the research that's calling the "positive feedbacks" into question.

This is not an elevated discourse, more for the laymen. It's a couple years old, they mention the tornadoes down around here from 2011 as if they were fairly recent.

[George the original one]

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. It increases as temperature goes up. Temperatures have gone up.

CO2 is THE secondary greenhouse gas. 9%-26% contributory, 2010 NASA study says 20% contributatory. Mankind has increased concentration by 40%, with 60% of that increase since 1975 and continuing to climb.

Saying that CO2 does not contribute to greenhouse effect is a lie.

[jacob]

For those who are interested in the scientific basis for why steveo73's last two statements are wrong, here they are for the record ... I would also like to point out that this stuff has been known very well for over 60 years and would be found in intro level textbooks on atmospheric science, astrophysics, ... and the likes.

If you want a general intro (that requires some comfort with algebra), I recommend

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Modelling ... 47085751X/

(I guess at this point I should strongly encourage people to go read that instead of proceeding with the 500 posts of arguments-gone-nowhere in this thread.)

point 1) For those who desire to study this for more than 10 minutes (more like 10 hours), go here:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2 ... -part-two/

This is a very good site which focuses exclusively on the physics behind the arguments. Unfortunately, it's also tough to understand for people who aren't at least hard science majors although the writer does an admirable job at it.

I'd recommend reading the entire CO2 series.

Here's my quick explanation. The reason why CO2 has a direct an significant effect is that CO2 has a wide absorption band almost right in at the peak of where the infrared radiation from the surface and atmosphere is the most intense.

http://www.xylenepower.com/Mars_EarthM.gif

See the red curve (that's the emitted spectrum) and the black curve (that's what's left after absorption). This has been known since the 1950s and satellites have been continuously monitoring the spectrum of that is emitted at the "top" of the atmosphere since 1978.

Sometimes denialists will make the argument that CO2 absorption quickly saturates. That after a wavelength is absorbed there's nothing left of that wavelength and therefore adding more CO2 will have zero effect. This is true in the laboratory setting. It's called the Beer-Lambert law. It's been mentioned very early on in this thread. What this argument fails to take into account is reemission. In the atmosphere that absorbed energy gets reemitted. Unlike in the lab, the absorbed energy doesn't go away (over the distance span of a test tube) but gets reabsorbed something else in the atmosphere. This completely changes the result. Reabsorption means that the energy is not lost. That less energy escapes the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/01/30/und ... art-three/ (again the entire series is interesting)

Another frequent objection is that we shouldn't be concerned about CO2 when water vapor is a much stronger green house gas than CO2. While it is true that H2O is much stronger than CO2 as anyone who has walked outside in humid air will attest to ... it's the humidity you feel (the amount of water vapor), not the trace amount of CO2... here's why we should be concerned anyway.

The answer is surprising and but in retrospect (once you know it) it's so stupid-simple that it should have been obvious.

2) Here's the short answer

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/wat ... house-gas/

And here's my quick explanation. The difference between CO2 and H20 in the atmosphere is that water responds very quickly to climate. You might have noticed this as the phenomena of rain and snow. Yes, it's as simple as that. Point being, humans have little influence on the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. For a given temperature, there's a given amount of vapor and there's nothing we can do about that vapor. If we try to put a lot of it into the atmosphere (by boiling lots of water), it quickly falls down as rain or snow. If we try to extract the vapor and make the atmosphere drier, more will evaporate off the oceans and quickly nullify our efforts.

Conversely, CO2 responds extremely slowly to climate (hundred to several hundred years). What we put into the atmosphere stays there for a long time. As shown in (1) above, CO2 does drive temperature. As we all know, when temperature increases, the amount of water vapor (the absolute water density) in the lower atmosphere where it is densest (highest air pressure) and warmest (temperature decreases as you go up until you reach space) goes up as the temperatures go up. You have personally experienced this as a muggy feeling after a thunderstorm. More importantly for the climate is the a CO2 driven temperature increase will increase evaporating from the oceans. Indeed, it will fall down again as rain, but this process is ongoing and so it will raise the average humidity of the atmosphere. That in turn will raise the temperature due to the greenhouse effect as described above. This in turn causes more evaporation. This is the positive feedback effect. For an increasing level of CO2, temperatures will thus continue to rise until increased precipitation balances out the evaporation.

We are already seeing increasing precipitation.

One point where science is still work in progress---because this question is very hard---is exactly what that extra water does once it gets into the air. For example, if it causes extra clouds that will actually decrease the amount of incoming radiation from the sun because it'll be reflected upwards. Note that modern climate models do contain clouds. Also, clouds (or aerosols) is the one area where humans can reduce global warming. We can pollute more with business as usual. (That's part of the consensus explanation of the hiatus). We can even do so deliberately by spraying sulfur at high altitudes and grey out the atmosphere (create a semi-permanent haze which would have to be maintained by a fleet of airliners or the ongoing launch of balloons).

Now, I'm not sure whether steveo73 will dismiss this as "my viewpoint" or reassert that "nothing has been proven" call for more data, as he usually does, but these two points have been understood for several decades already (since before the Nixon administration) and they are well documented in far more detail than I did here in the scientific literature. They would also be explained in practically all text books on atmospheric science. As well, some of the physics (the thermodynamics) dates back to the early 1800s, underlies much of our civilization (power plants, engines, materials), and is taught to freshman scientists and engineers. The radiation physics is also solid and about as old as quantum mechanics (almost 100 years) and is the basis for ability to build radio antenna, lasers, and understand materials science. Finally, the effects on the system have been in continuous observation by orbiting satellites since 1978 verifying the predictions made by the models.

In short, these are not controversial points.

[jacob]

@steveo73 - Sorry, didn't see your second post. That Spencer paper was interesting. Here's where he very likely failed to pass review:

"It is only when we plot overlapping averages — e.g., yearly averages computed every month — that we see these linear and spiral patterns appear."

Basically, he's artificially inducing aliasing (spurious harmonics) in his time-series when he uses moving averages like that. That's a fairly technical point [in signal processing] so he might not be aware of that slip.

If/when he just looked at the raw data, he just has a cloud (pure randomness) from which no conclusions can be drawn.

My second objection which might not hold but which would be impossible to check without have access to a model simulation of my own is that generally (based on modelling experience) trying to simulate feedbacks using a model with only 3 zones tends to create artificial impedance where none would exist if he used better resolution.

My guess is that these problems are a large part of why this paper was rejected. The second objection is easier to fix than the first. If I was the reviewer, I would ask for a model with more zone resolution (50 or more). Then I'd ask for a different statistical treatment than MAs.

I base my statements on 9+ years of professional experience building and working with similar models and seeing other people make similar mistakes. I like the approach though and I think the paper might still be salvageable if those concerns are addressed. Of course this could change the conclusion. We don't know before it's tried.

[jennypenny]

If you want to find a better way, I suggest starting with the asymmetric problem: How do you defeat a small group of determined people who don't abide by the standard rules (here reasonable debate).

Part of the problem is that, generally, small, determined groups of people have had a positive effect on society. So the trick is to silence the ones that cause harm, yet still allow the ones that produce positive change. How is that possible without silencing them all?

My suggestion would be to avoid engaging with anyone doing the Gish gallop( ). I think Bill Nye is making a huge mistake by engaging creationists and giving them a much larger platform. Most Christians in the US support evolution as the basis for biology education. It really wasn't a problem except for isolated churches and school districts. When Nye went after the creationists, other Christians defended them even if they didn't agree with them. Nye's attention to the matter and his derogatory statements have actually expanded the number of people supporting creationists.

(I guess at this point I should strongly encourage people to go read that instead of proceeding with the 500 posts of arguments-gone-nowhere in this thread.)

I've gotten a lot out of this thread. I can't imagine I'm the only one.

[steveo73]

I just hope that a bunch of you go and actually do some research on this topic.

There is no way that we can state that man made GW via increased CO2 in the atmosphere is occurring. If anything we can state that the evidence thus far is that this is a false proposition.

We can't categorically state that at this point but I think (and this is just a prediction which could be wrong) that within the next 20 odd years man made GW via increased CO2 will be widely accepted to have been a false hypothesis.

I'd add that this topic is a fantastic insight into how "science" is not science. You can see massive perversions of the facts everywhere and it impacts popular belief. Sites like Skeptical science are basically run by people who distort reality and people fall for it.