"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.

[RandomGuy]

Why does it matter when the science is incomplete and tainted?

The question was not directed at you, and you didn't answer it in the form it was asked.

Either it is true or it is false. Perhaps you can find the answer in the "peer reviewed" science that you posted yourself. If any of it was done after 1975, then we have the answer.

To answer your question, the only way it would not matter is if 100% of all the research done, if any, since 1975 was completely fabricated/false.

We can address this, but first must ascertain whether or not there has been any research.

The question remains.

True or false:

We have done absolutely no research into global climate and climate systems since 1975?

[DarrinS]

There is no logical flaw in your statement. Your statement:

Today, we are no more in a position to predict the climate of 2030 than people of 1975 were in a position to predict our current climate.

... is factually incorrect.

You can't prove whether that statement is true until 2030.

By the way, the first IPCC models estimates were already wrong in their first 10 year prediction. Why should I have faith in estimates 20 or 30 years out?

You can take a crappy computer model and run it on the fastest computers in the world and it's still a crappy computer model. Similarly, there are computer codes written in the 1970's that are fast, robust, and still in use today (see BLAS and LAPACK).

The implication that "Because scientists said something different 30 years ago, their contradiction means they are wrong now."

... is logically flawed.

I suppose so, but can you name ONE, just ONE prediction of environmental catastrophe that has come true? They don't have a great track record.

I will take you at your word that you are honest until proven otherwise.

Let's start with the factually incorrect statement.

True or false:

We have done absolutely no research into global climate and climate systems since 1975.

It is true that a lot of shoddy research into climate change has occurred since 1975, especially in the last 10 years or so. The "hockey stick" analysis done by Mann, et. al., that was plastered all over early IPCC reports, but has all but disappeared from their most recent reports, is a good example.

I don't have much faith in any "model" that turns random white noise into "hockey sticks".

[RandomGuy]

True or false:

We have done absolutely no research into global climate and climate systems since 1975.

It is true that a lot of shoddy research into climate change has occurred since 1975, especially in the last 10 years or so.

So the answer is: True, we have done research into global climate and climate systems. Thank you.

On to the next bit, with a nod to WC and the other points you brought up.

Is 100% of the science and research into global climate and climate systems done since 1975 completely false/erroneous? i.e was there ANY valid science done sinc 1975?

This is another yes or no question, asked fairly.

[DarrinS]

Is 100% of the science and research into global climate and climate systems done since 1975 completely false/erroneous? i.e was there ANY valid science done sinc 1975?

I'm sure there has.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sure there has [been some valid research done on climate since 1975].

Good.

So, since we have done at least some valid research into climate, we MUST therefore be "more in a position to predict the climate of 2030 than people of 1975 were in a position to predict our current climate".

This then contradicts your earlier statement, making it factually incorrect.

I could also point out that our ability to model climate has markedly improved, simply due to the revolution in computing power that allows us to test things. The models may be right or they may be wrong depending on whose assumptions you use, but one cannot reasonably claim that this development has no effect whatsoever on our ability to predict the figure.

Now we get to move onto the implication and its logical fallacy.

[RandomGuy]

The implication that "Because scientists said something different 30 years ago, their contradiction means they are wrong now."

... is logically flawed.

I suppose so, but can you name ONE, just ONE prediction of environmental catastrophe that has come true? They don't have a great track record.

So you do at least see the logical contradiction then.

You are entirely correct. We don't have a good track record of long-term climate prediction, just as before 1902, humans didn't have a good track record of heavier than air flight.

One cannot logically conclude that predictions based on AGW are false, simply because past predictions have been false. In Russian roulette, you can predict that any given pull of the trigger will give an empty click, but it only takes being wrong about that once to prove that assumption that it will always produce a click to be terribly wrong.

One can logically factor the past track record into assessments of the reliability of predictions, however. This is both logical and reasonable.

[DarrinS]

Good.

So, since we have done at least some valid research into climate, we MUST therefore be "more in a position to predict the climate of 2030 than people of 1975 were in a position to predict our current climate".

This then contradicts your earlier statement, making it factually incorrect.

Just because research has been done doesn't mean our ability to predict future climate has improved.

I could also point out that our ability to model climate has markedly improved, simply due to the revolution in computing power that allows us to test things.

Powerful computers don't make "good" models. Good modelers (i.e. humans) do. Yes, some computer models can help you test things. VALIDATED models can do that. If I hand you a piss-poor computer model, what is it you think you're going to be testing?

The models may be right or they may be wrong depending on whose assumptions you use, but one cannot reasonably claim that this development has no effect whatsoever on our ability to predict the figure.

I didn't say ALL models have poor predictive capability, just the IPCC's models.

[DarrinS]

One cannot logically conclude that predictions based on AGW are false, simply because past predictions have been false. In Russian roulette, you can predict that any given pull of the trigger will give an empty click, but it only takes being wrong about that once to prove that assumption that it will always produce a click to be terribly wrong.

Guns are perfectly safe when they aren't loaded.


But you are correct. I cannot logically conclude that predictions of environmental doomsday are false, simply because ALL past predictions of environmental doomsday have been false.


I just don't have a lot of FAITH in them -- which is all AGW theory is anyway.

[RandomGuy]

Just because research has been done doesn't mean our ability to predict future climate has improved.

Correct. If 100% of the research is faulty, then that statement is accurate.

If we have done any valid research, as you have acknowledged we have, then our ability to predict future climate has, by definition improved.

Let me help you out here, and give you a step further in your argument. The distinction that you are probably trying to get to, but can't quite put into words is this:

We have improved our ability to predict future climate, sure, but have we done so enough to produce reliable predictions?

[RandomGuy]

[putting into words a point Darrin was trying to get to] We have improved our ability to predict future climate, sure, but have we done so enough to produce reliable predictions?

The implication here is that you are trying to totally dismiss the AGW theory by saying it is based on faulty research.

What you are missing then, is that a blanket statement that dismisses ALL research, and says that we haven't done enough research to reliable predictions says that the research that supports WC's ability to categorically say that we aren't in for a good spell of warming is also unreliable.

WC is of the impression that we clearly have done research that can support reliable predictions about the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.

If you want to make that case, then take it up with WC.

[RandomGuy]

Guns are perfectly safe when they aren't loaded.


But you are correct. I cannot logically conclude that predictions of environmental doomsday are false, simply because ALL past predictions of environmental doomsday have been false.


I just don't have a lot of FAITH in them -- which is all AGW theory is anyway.

Good points, both along with some intellectual honesty. That is refreshing after trying to drag an honest answer from WC for the longest time.

The problem with evaluating the evidence is that I took a look at the actual sources that WC gave as being "peer reviewed" (it wasn't actually peer reviewed, but I let that slide), a lot of those same studies cited by the "summary" given in the pe ion project seem to be used by the AGW theory people as well. The quote from a paper by David Archer was a concrete example of this.

The ONLY thing that differs in WC's position is the conclusions drawn. After looking though the pe ion project's sources, it was obvious they were cherry picking items from the same sets of research, just as they accuse the IPCC of doing. This is ok if you are making a case for a theory, but real scientists will address both the strengths and weaknesses of their case, this was not done.

Since both groups are apparently using the same data, we are left, once again, with two conflicting theories, but still must formulate a course of action based on ambiguous data.

All of which leads right back to the OP, and the unavoidable logic.

You might say that the gun is unloaded, as WC would imply, but not having seen if it was loaded or not before it was handed to us, prudence would suggest that we not point it at our collective heads and pull the trigger.

The first rule in any gun safety course is NEVER point ANY weapon, even unloaded, at another human being that you don't intend to shoot, is it not?

[DarrinS]

Correct. If 100% of the research is faulty, then that statement is accurate.

If we have done any valid research, as you have acknowledged we have, then our ability to predict future climate has, by definition improved.

Let me help you out here, and give you a step further in your argument. The distinction that you are probably trying to get to, but can't quite put into words is this:

We have improved our ability to predict future climate, sure, but have we done so enough to produce reliable predictions?

I disagree totally.


For example, we know a TON about atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. The first time weather was successfully predicted by numerical methods was in 1950 on the ENIAC computer. Obviously computers and weather models have become more sophisticated in the last 60 years, but there is a limit to how far we can predict weather. The reason: both our weather and climate are too chaotic and complex for us to do any reasonable long-term predictions.


I know a thing or two about computer modeling, because it's what I do for a living.

[DarrinS]

The implication here is that you are trying to totally dismiss the AGW theory by saying it is based on faulty research.

What you are missing then, is that a blanket statement that dismisses ALL research, and says that we haven't done enough research to reliable predictions says that the research that supports WC's ability to categorically say that we aren't in for a good spell of warming is also unreliable.

WC is of the impression that we clearly have done research that can support reliable predictions about the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.

If you want to make that case, then take it up with WC.

Actually, I'm not trying to completely dismiss AGW theory. I just have issue with it being considered a scientific reality like continental drift. I just don't agree that we know enough (right now) to say one way or the other.


Furthermore, whether there is AGW or not, I'm certainly not convinced that is cons utes a "crisis".

[DarrinS]

All of which leads right back to the OP, and the unavoidable logic.

You might say that the gun is unloaded, as WC would imply, but not having seen if it was loaded or not before it was handed to us, prudence would suggest that we not point it at our collective heads and pull the trigger.

The first rule in any gun safety course is NEVER point ANY weapon, even unloaded, at another human being that you don't intend to shoot, is it not?

If you watch the video in the OP, you have to accept the premise that AGW, if it is really happening, represents a catastrophe in terms of environmental, economic, political, etc. etc.

There should be 8 scenarios instead of 4.

[RandomGuy]

I disagree totally.


For example, we know a TON about atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. The first time weather was successfully predicted by numerical methods was in 1950 on the ENIAC computer. Obviously computers and weather models have become more sophisticated in the last 60 years, but there is a limit to how far we can predict weather. The reason: both our weather and climate are too chaotic and complex for us to do any reasonable long-term predictions.


I know a thing or two about computer modeling, because it's what I do for a living.

Then you should know the distinction between trying to predict the weather in New York City on February 14, 2062, and the overall average temperatures for an entire year.

When you aggregate data points together, your ability to generally predict trends goes up.

The stock market may go down tomorrow, and the day after that, and then up, etc, but over the long term one can say it is very likely that it will go up at a rate close to some percentage that can be determined based on past data.

You can't get, and the IPCC doesn't try to get, a specific "global average temperatures WILL be X degrees in Y year". It doesn't work that way.

If one looks at the language used by those predicting climate changes, they couch their statements in way that allows for those statements to be supported by data, as any good science does.

That sounds something like this: "It is highly likely that we will see this range of temperatures during this time period."

They allow for a possibility that they are wrong a good deal more than WC does, or would have you think they do.

Over time, our ability to find that probable range will, and is, going up because we will have more data, more research, and yes, more complex models that account for more variables.

That is why I am a bit less concerned about who exactly is currently 100% right, much to WC's dismay.

I know that as time progresses, we will have more data, and be better able to find the most likely range, AGW or not. Time will provide the answer.

One thing that models do give us is the ability to test how changing starting assumptions affects outcomes, and identifies the most critical assumptions that should be where we focus our research first.

[RandomGuy]

If you watch the video in the OP, you have to accept the premise that AGW, if it is really happening, represents a catastrophe in terms of environmental, economic, political, etc. etc.

There should be 8 scenarios instead of 4.

Indeed. He actually has a follow-up video that does just that.

For purposes of risk mitigation however, one only primarily needs to consider worst/best possibilities.

You do have to accept the premise that AGW if it is really happening represents a catastrophe, just as you have to accept WC's premise that if we go off and go CO2 neutral it will needlessly cost our economy "trillions", because both are the presented "worst-case" scenarios.

Any contingency planning, military or business, uses the same methodology. The ultimate purpose of such analysis is to clearly see a range of possibilities and outcomes, be prepared for as many of them as possible, and avoid/plan for the worst possible outcomes, given available resources.

[DarrinS]

Then you should know the distinction between trying to predict the weather in New York City on February 14, 2062, and the overall average temperatures for an entire year.

Obvisously. I did indicate that weather and CLIMATE are not predictable. Or, at least have not successfully been predicted over a long period. If you can find an example, please enlighten me.

When you aggregate data points together, your ability to generally predict trends goes up.

Whether aggregate or not, a flawed model does not have good predictive value.

The stock market may go down tomorrow, and the day after that, and then up, etc, but over the long term one can say it is very likely that it will go up at a rate close to some percentage that can be determined based on past data.

One of the IPCC estimates predicted a temperature change of 1.5C to 6C by the year 2100. That's a 400% variation! If I had a computer model that could predict stock values, but with 400% uncertainty, would you want to use my model to guide your investment decisions?

You can't get, and the IPCC doesn't try to get, a specific "global average temperatures WILL be X degrees in Y year". It doesn't work that way.

Yes, I know. As I've pointed out, they give a range. And it's a range that is unacceptably large.

If one looks at the language used by those predicting climate changes, they couch their statements in way that allows for those statements to be supported by data, as any good science does.

Well, they based one of their early reports on the "hockey stick" data by Mann, et. al. That "hockey stick" analysis has been shown to be a flawed analysis.

Here's a corrected version:

Over time, our ability to find that probable range will, and is, going up because we will have more data, more research, and yes, more complex models that account for more variables.

Perhaps.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, I'm not trying to completely dismiss AGW theory. I just have issue with it being considered a scientific reality like continental drift. I just don't agree that we know enough (right now) to say one way or the other.


Furthermore, whether there is AGW or not, I'm certainly not convinced that is cons utes a "crisis".

I would agree with you on both points. Shocking, isn't it?

I think a lot of people tend to take AGW with a much higher degree of certainty than the science suggests. It is a popluar idea.

Whether it is a crisis, is also something I am not entirely convinced of.

As I have said before though, it seems to be at least a fair possibility that it is both real and catastrophic.

I don't know if the gun is loaded, or if there is a round in the chamber, so I am not going to point it at my face and pull the trigger.

There is, also, a very strong possibility that the fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) causing the problem are going to get VERY expensive in 10-20 years.

The benefits of avoiding energy sources that rely on these coincides with low CO2 emissions.

That is why the case for doing something now has two potential benefits:

1. Avoiding the cost swings associated with commodity fuels, as well as a massive compe ive advantage over those who don't.
2. Avoiding the worst case scenario of AGW.

WC's worst case scenario is in MY area of expertise, and I judge his worst case scenario as being about as remote as he judges the worst case AGW theory. Not only is it highly unlikely, there is a pretty fair possibility that the exact opposite is true.

I CAN provide data and reasoning showing this, and have given some of it here.

He wants to dismiss this as being irrelevant, because it suits him on some emotional level I guess, but any consideration of a course of action must take into account possibility of occurance. It suits WC's confirmation bias to do so in one case, but to be blind to that fact when it comes to his own assertions. That is partly why I assign his conclusions so little weight.

I don't have first-hand knowledge of IPCC bias, but WC's is readily apparent.

[DarrinS]

You do have to accept the premise that AGW if it is really happening represents a catastrophe, ...

No, really I don't.

[RandomGuy]

One of the IPCC estimates predicted a temperature change of 1.5C to 6C by the year 2100. That's a 400% variation! If I had a computer model that could predict stock values, but with 400% uncertainty, would you want to use my model to guide your investment decisions?

Actually, as WC probably rightly points out that variation is not 400%.

You have to consider that the variation is not 1.5 to 6 degrees, but rather
the variation is 256.6 to 262 degrees above the nomitive "dead earth" scenario.

That makes the swing much less than 400% to my understanding.

Again, you will have to take that up with WC.

[RandomGuy]

No, really I don't.

You do if you want to do responsible contingency planning.

Whether or not you chose to do that is your business. If you choose not to, we can muddle along.

[RandomGuy]

Lunch hour is up.

Take care.

[doobs]

That risk management video is really stupid. Really, really, really stupid.

First of all, he doesn't really explain what he means by "action." He also assumes that whatever "action" is taken will be effective at combating global warming. What if man-made global warming is real and a threat to our very existence, and we undertake costly governmental intervention that completely fails to address the problem? Then we will have spent a ton of money, endured economic consequences from now until our extinction, and still suffered the "catastrophic" consequences of global warming. That scenario sounds pretty miserable to me.

Which brings me to my next point. He assumes that global warming is a bad thing. He assumes "catastrophic" consequences. What if man-made global warming is real, and we do nothing to address it, but the consequences are far from catastrophic? What if global warming is actually a good thing, and brings prosperity?

Is global warming even occurring?

If so, is global warming even a bad thing? How so?

To what extent is man actually the cause of global warming, and to what extent is global warming attributable to a natural warming trend?

If it is a bad thing, and if man is the cause, what can actually be done to effectively combat global warming? (That is, poorly-defined "action" is not enough. As with any government program, there is a risk of throwing money around with no results. As with any regulatory scheme, there is a risk of unnecessarily hindering business with no results.)

Which of these questions have actually been answered, to a thinking person's satisfaction?

There are just way too many variables for me to seriously consider some nerd's oversimplified, bull dry erase board demonstration.

[Shastafarian]

Which brings me to my next point. He assumes that global warming is a bad thing. He assumes "catastrophic" consequences. What if man-made global warming is real, and we do nothing to address it, but the consequences are far from catastrophic? What if global warming is actually a good thing, and brings prosperity?

How could it possibly be beneficial overall? If scientists are correct in their predictions, places like NYC, Shanghai, Kolkata (Calcutta), etc. will be under water. That will displace millions of people and kill who knows how many. And at what point does it end? If scientists are correct then we're causing all of this. We'll continue to heat and destroy our planet. So I'm asking, what are your boundaries for global warming being a good thing? Will it take a temperature rise of several degrees worldwide to make you think it's a bad thing?

[DarrinS]

How could it possibly be beneficial overall? If scientists are correct in their predictions, places like NYC, Shanghai, Kolkata (Calcutta), etc. will be under water. That will displace millions of people and kill who knows how many. And at what point does it end? If scientists are correct then we're causing all of this. We'll continue to heat and destroy our planet. So I'm asking, what are your boundaries for global warming being a good thing? Will it take a temperature rise of several degrees worldwide to make you think it's a bad thing?