1379: "4.5 Degrees"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:34 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:The government, unfortunately, creates scientific consensus by way of not funding studies that they think are a waste of time. Since the official government stance is that global warming is real and man-made, the only studies that get funded are ones whose applications indicate that they're going to prove that.

This argument is frankly nonsense. First, the idea that governments all over the world have an interest in inventing global warming is completely contrary to what they've been doing; there have been lots of administrations that have been trying not to take action, or trying to cast doubt, sometimes to the point of muzzling scientists. If you're going to claim the consensus comes from them, rather than the weight of the evidence, you're going to need a lot more explaining than just your claim it's happening.

Second, beside governments there are the think-tanks like the Heartland and Fraser Institutes. Nearly all the objections to global warming are associated with them, they're very well-publicized, and they do manage to do a lot of nitpicking existing studies. So if they somehow never manage to actually establish contrary results, it's not going to be for want of funding, but want of evidence.

Third, the idea that all studies determine what they will find in advance is simply not how things work. If nothing else, there was the Berkeley Earth Project; before its results were determined, its methods were originally praised by denialists like Anthony Watts, and its funding included groups like the Koch brothers that have interests in downplaying global warming. So they obviously were hoping the end results weren't going to be warming, and guess what – they still were.

To sum up: the claim that the consensus is the result of politics rather than overwhelming evidence is completely false, and honestly, projection on behalf of denialist groups, many of whom are plainly arguing based on their payroll (see aformentioned think-tanks).

maxwell_smart wrote:I can only speculate that Randall made a units mistake [200 ft = 60 m erroneously written as 200 m], or compared the sea level at the last glacial maximum (LGM) with that which would occur if all the ice melted.

I would think 200 m is supposed to have been how much higher the sea level was during the Cretaceous period. It's listed right under the words "Cretaceous hothouse", a time when for instance North America was split by an interior seaway, and there were polar forests. For that, it seems to be accurate within rounding.
Last edited by chenille on Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Netreker0 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:42 pm UTC



If the best citation you can find for something is something that calls itself "Right Wing News," perhaps it's time to reconsider some of your data points. That's the same rule I use every time I'm about to make an argument that has to cite "Left Wing News," StormFront.org, or Martyr's Weekly Periodical for the Advancement of Glorious Islamic Jihad, and I find it's generally served me well.

But let the free market take it's natural course. Can you use massive amounts of tax payer dollars to FORCE alternative energy to come into existence overnight? You tell me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra



Okay, I will tell you: Yes. Whether we should is debatable, and I'm not sure how much you've contributed to that debate.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that just because we Americans failed to do something once, it simply can't be done. Then again, maybe cautioning the guy who actually said "I'll say it again, slowly" in a written format about arrogance isn't the best approach.

The defense budget is littered with projects that either failed completely, or "succeeded" in yielding results of dubious military value. Of course this is done using massive amounts of taxpayer money, largely through no-bid contracts or a highly dubious closed bidding process largely exempt from FOIA requests. Unlike CigarDoug and rightwingnews, I really don't see why it's subverting the free market when the black liberal President (and Al Gore) does it in the name of alternative energy, but it's letting "the free market take it's natural course" when a bunch of white conservative (or for that matter a bunch of white moderate and liberal presidents) do it in the name of defense. They both offend libertarian sensibilities equally.

Blatant hypocrisy disclosure: I work for a company that benefits profoundly from a system of defense bidding that really doesn't have "free market taking it's natural course" written all over it.

That said, the reason for the difference in perception is clear: We're afraid of angry brown people and yellow people and more recently the Russians (part II) trying to kill us. We're so afraid that we're willing to forget about failed DARPA funded research and unsuccessful defense systems development and the most recent private military contractor getting caught defrauding our government, and focus on the fact that despite these failures, despite the inefficiency and the subversion of the free market, once you throw enough money at the problem--and maybe compromise a few civil liberties and some of our free market principles--you actually CAN succeed in building the most powerful military machine in the world that has pretty much kept us safe from a lot of people who really hate us.

And despite Doug's angry tirade about Al Gore's fear-mongering, we obviously aren't anywhere near that fear point when it comes to climate change. Which is honestly fine by me. Fear is a great motivator if you're trying to build the better mouse trap, or for that matter a better bomb. Fear is not conducive to better science when you're still trying to gather or to validate basic data or to analyze it in an objective manner. Politicization is almost as bad as straight up fear. People like Doug and his friends at rightwingnews are the single worst thing to happen to climate science. People like Al Gore are a close second.

TheDaveRoss
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:54 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby TheDaveRoss » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:51 pm UTC

I am so very excited about this comic! This is the first comic since Time which has a chance to unseat that thread as the most replied to, and this one will have at least 10x the vitriol!

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:53 pm UTC

Ugh guys, everyone reasonable here (except Randall it seems) agree AGW is a major problem, and that there may be good solutions to it (does anyone who knows about Aerosol Sulphates think it can be used to block the temperature rise without any major disturbances outside a change to the rainfall pattern increasing drought in sensitive areas? (learnt about that from the gravely inaccurate but interesting FotW game). Can we get back the reasonable discussion now and just ignore the crazy doomsayers who don't believe in geo-engineering (even though that's what AGW unintentionally is) and deniers? This reminds me of the time I tried to compare male/female female/male upper body strength and social skills on gitp (an rpg forum) and then some mean-spirited people accused me of being a horrible person who thought women were aliens (partly because I didn't bother to duplicate everything like above, even though I pointed that (and a LOT of other things out in a disclaimer (sadly I forgot to include having been rightfully called a misandrist in the past for pointing out men were responsible for the most violence and political oppression, but I doubt that would've stopped anything since the social skill differences weren't as wide as the physical differences in a combat-oriented game for obvious reasons such as childbirth taking up a lot of physical resources)).
This was a good read until about a page ago.
Last edited by cwDeici on Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:13 pm UTC, edited 7 times in total.

matteyas
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:50 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby matteyas » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:57 pm UTC

This forum apparently won't let me paste a URL with a simple description; I guess it doesn't favor concise discussions. Therefore, I'm left with quoting the entire thing; I hope others enjoy it as much as I did.

Spoiler:
Global warming advocates went to Antarctica to prove that Antarctic sea ice had disappeared because of man. They got stuck in ten foot thick sea ice they knew wasn't there. The rescue ship was also stuck for a while, but it was eventually able to back out to safer water.

This all happens in the heat of summer. A hundred years ago, the entire region, right up to the shore, was completely clear of ice.

Given the embarrassment of such "political" scientists, it is worth examining the issue: does man have a major impact on the climate?

How does a physicist, such as myself, address this topic? I look at the physical evidence and see what it says.

Let's start with the computer models. How well do the warming models predict? Climate models predicted that we would now be experiencing an exponential rise in Earth's temperature. Unfortunately, for the last seventeen years the climate has shown no such growth.

Well, then, how well do the models account for past climate? We know from the chronicles of witnesses that the mean temperature fluctuated by several degrees. The Bronze-Age warmth was followed by a cold climate-caused dark age. The later Roman warm optimum was followed, at the end of the Western Empire, by cold sufficient to freeze the Rhine and Danube rivers and propel the starving Germanic tribes into Roman territory. Then, after the medieval warming, when Greenland was green and wine was exported from England, came the post-medieval Little Ice Age.

The models account for none of this. Climate oscillates; the models do not. For a considerable while, the warming advocates even denied the eyewitness testimony -- there were no Little Ice Ages, the advocates said.

From the written records of the last thousand years, we find that cold correlates with sunspot minima. This is happening today. Correlation does not prove cause, and causation is still hypothetical, but the correlation is suggestive.

Then there are the ice age glaciations. Warming advocates claim that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused the melting of the glaciers. Indeed, there is a correlation. Unfortunately, the increase in carbon dioxide always came after the glaciers started melting. This might have had something to do with the oceans warming. More about this in a bit.

Carbon dioxide does warm the Earth. So what happens when we add more of it to the atmosphere? The early warming models assumed that the heating was taking place in the lower atmosphere -- the troposphere. Adding carbon dioxide here was said to be bad.

There is an easy test for this: go outside and look at the house across the street. In the infrared portion of the spectrum, where carbon dioxide light absorption takes place, that house would be invisible, or at best barely discernible. The fact is that carbon dioxide absorption is so strong that the troposphere is already opaque with carbon dioxide. Adding more carbon dioxide is much like adding bricks to thicken a brick wall. The added bricks don't affect the transparency of the wall in the least.

The climate modelers overlooked this gross error until just a few years ago. If the problem is not tropospheric, they said, it must be in the stratosphere. Unfortunately for the modelers, we can see stratospheric carbon dioxide from satellites. Satellites show an anomaly: industrial areas, where man is injecting the most carbon dioxide, show little increase in stratospheric carbon dioxide. Why? One idea is that these places have lots of greenery, and plants love to eat carbon dioxide -- it's their food. On the other hand, downwind of hot, salty sea water, such as the Red Sea and the Gulf of California, and even the Mediterranean, there are vast plumes of stratospheric carbon dioxide. This makes sense. The warmer the water, the less carbon dioxide it can dissolve. The same is true of salt. Increase saltiness, and you decrease dissolved carbon dioxide. Cold water, with lots of dissolved carbon dioxide, is sucked into these constrained areas. The sea warms, evaporates water, and becomes more salty. Carbon dioxide is released.

Warm water means evaporation. Evaporation means increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is an even better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Therefore, carbon dioxide, by increasing water vapor, induces a positive feedback which increases the Earth's temperature still further.

Such reasoning is embedded in most of the models. This is familiar. Nights with low clouds generally are warmer than clear nights, because the clouds form a blanket that traps and reflects back the Earth's radiation. But cloud tops also reflect sunlight and thereby act to cool the Earth. Which is more important?

For a long time, the argument was that cloud warming beats cooling. Then the argument shifted to the notion that the effects cancel. But there is an easy test for this. In equatorial regions, evaporated water vapor forms lots of clouds. These regions are hot, even at night, so one might argue that the clouds cause warming. However, just north and south of these cloudy regions, the air is clear. Here we find the Earth's great deserts -- sometimes cooler at night, but very much hotter during the day. The evidence is that, on balance, clouds cause cooling. The feedback is negative. Carbon dioxide-induced evaporation of water vapor actually results in moderation of the greenhouse effect.

All the foregoing is at the micro-level of Earth's history. Deep time tells us even more. Throughout most of Earth's history, the atmosphere contained much more carbon dioxide than today, with periods of great carbon dioxide variation. Yet, despite this, the basic climate has been remarkably stable and relatively cool.

Start at the beginning. About four billion years ago, the temperature of the Earth had fallen sufficiently for oceans to form and life to begin. If the warming advocates are right, the Earth should have become like Venus -- dry and hot enough to melt lead. It didn't.

For billions of years after the oceans were created, the atmosphere remained mostly a very thick blanket of carbon dioxide. Nitrogen, which today makes up 78 percent of Earth's atmosphere, was only a trace gas in the original thick carbon dioxide atmosphere. Oxygen was practically nonexistent. The sun may have been cooler then, or it may have been hotter. Still, the temperature had to have been moderate, and much like today, or forms of life other than extremophiles would not have evolved. Stromatolites, which originated early on in that carbon-thick atmosphere, continue to thrive in today's cool environment.

With the evolution of photosynthesizing plankton and algae, most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was converted to calcium carbonate, and oxygen was released. The atmosphere became what we have today, but generally with a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide. Temperatures stayed about the same. Obviously some powerful negative feedback mechanism was moderating the temperature, and still is.

That is the bottom line: negative feedback keeps the Earth's climate relatively stable despite large variations in solar flux and atmospheric composition.

Man may have some influence over the climate, but the effect is likely to be very small. There is no cause for economy-disrupting control of carbon dioxide. Be very suspicious of those who advocate, and carry out, such a policy. They have something most unpleasant in mind.

philip1201
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby philip1201 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:04 pm UTC

Alsadius wrote:The data is falling out of the bottom end of their confidence intervals,


Source? I tried to google, but all I found was a host of articles built around this one image, which doesn't reference the models themselves.

keithl wrote:If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate. Get off your butt, think and build and sell new tools that work. If all you can think of is pointing guns at people (=laws), shut up and get out of the way.


The very point of laws as a concept is to prevent people from "getting in the way". The current laws are not set up in a way to prevent tragedy of the commons, and we are apparently failing to prevent it on our own.

jpk wrote:As for "geo-engineering" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales. We're fucked: stare that in the face for a while until the urge to spout stupid happy-talk goes away.


As for "penicillin" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales. As for "bows and arrows to hunt with" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales. As for "automation" - sorry, but magic wands are for fairy tales.

'Good stories' are for fairy tales. 'Karmic balance' is for fairy tales. The trope of "wrong genre savvy" is for fairy tales. The universe is not set up in a way to reward judiciousness. Only the results matter, and climate change isn't fast enough at switching from "damaging" to "irreversible" (or even "catastrophic") that we can't find a solution by throwing world war levels of cash at the problem to solve it within 5 to 10 years, even at current levels of technology.

Protip: We are currently in an ice age.


ctdonath wrote:Historical cyclical temperature change (per Antarctic core samples, with modern sensors filling in at the end):

Spoiler:
Image


These claims are contradictory.

CigarDoug wrote:I'll say it again, slowly: There hasn't been any global warming since 1997.


Damned by the obvious omission: there has not been a single year as hot as this one since temperatures have been recorded, before 1997.

Blackima wrote:So a future with massive global warming doesn't look too bad!


A billion people displaced in Asian coastal regions. Agriculture yields decrease as weather patterns change unexpectedly. Invasion, starvation, riots, wars, a hundred nuclear bombs fired by Indian and Pakistani radicals driven to desperation, with the targets probably including Europe and China. Between 5% and 50% of the world's population dead. "Not too bad" my ass.

synp wrote:The scientist would not be shunned, or be blacklisted from receiving further grants. Such is not the case for climate change.

Source? Also, please consider that the world is not the US, or even the anglosphere, and climate change is not a controversial topic everywhere.

ctdonath wrote:There's a valid concern about professional bias: if you participate in X as a career, you probably have incentive to support it. Considering that there's money in proving "humans are to blame for global climate change" (nee "warming", nee "cooling", as fads change) but not in the alternatives, and dissenters from that view are labeled "heretics", little surprise there's lots of peer-reviewed back-patting and little approved dissent.


Are you kidding me? Conservatives and polluting companies would declare you a new folk hero and make you a millionaire if you were to publish evidence against anthropogenic climate change. Science in general is set up in such a way that deviating from the norm - with good evidence - gives you prestige and money. Besides, it isn't string theory or psychology: "back patting" can't be done in climate change without fudging the numbers, which would therefore have to happen in almost every case for there not to be a clear pattern differentiating between legitimate research and fraud. So it would have to be a conspiracy involving 90%+ of scholars.

JPhi1618 wrote:I gotta say that I don't follow all of the Global Warming news...

The main thing that no one has convinced me of is a point this comic clearly illustrates. So we had all that ice and cold 20,000 years ago, right? And we didn't have coal-fired power plants or cars or smog or anything? And somehow the Earth warmed up to where it is now right? So there must be some natural process for cooling and warming the Earth, and that's been happening for (b/m)illions(?) of years? But, now humans think that they have the power to warm and cool the Earth and that we're somehow responsible for the current state of affairs?

Let's be clear - I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't happening (I just don't have the data), I'm asking that if it is happening, and its happened before, what makes us so sure that humans are the most responsible for the current trend rather that some natural phenomenon? And please, don't slam me as some "denier" - I really would like some links or answers to have a better understanding of why we think human activity is doing this.

Also, bonus question - take a huge forest fire that consumes 1M acres of trees and grass. How do those "emissions" compare to industrial emissions output? Is that giant fire equal to a month of the US emissions? 2 months? 12? Or are they apples and oranges? What about a volcano? Of course, my point is that tons of carbon is released by natural processes, so how does that really compare with human output?


We're significantly increasing the atmospheric CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere through permanent deforestation, cattle farts, natural gas, coal and oil combustion, and other chemical waste. These gases have that name because they have an absorption spectrum different from standard atmospheric gases, which means that if they're present in larger quantities, more sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere than usual, which makes the atmosphere warmer. The energy is eventually emitted back out as infrared heat radiation, but the temperature of the atmosphere is higher because the energy is retained for a while longer. How much warmer is not clear a priori, because of possible secondary effects like sea CO2 absorption, changing percentage of cloud cover, changing albedo from local changes in climate (melting ice, deforestation, desert expansion), etc.. Meanwhile, concurrently, global temperatures have risen at a rate which pretty decently correlates with the rate of increased greenhouse gases from industrialisation. Also, ice samples from Antarctica have demonstrated a similar correlation for other temperature changes (but AFAIK not with enough resolution to determine cause and effect).

AFAIK, that is basically all there is, with more precise stuff differing in kind, rather than in any fundamental principle. Naively, we should be expected to heat the planet by releasing greenhouse gases, but climate is weird. When we look back at the past over a long period, there is a good correlation, but we can't tell which way around. When we look at the past hundred years, we see temperature following changes in greenhouse gases reasonably well, but there is still little data and it could always be an accidental correlation. Combine the three, and Occam's razor points at anthropogenic climate change (with enough certainty to convince 97% of climate scientists, as well as convince the entire world except China and the United States to voluntarily limit their economic growth in an attempt to stop it.).

A forest fire shouldn't affect emissions significantly, since the forest will regrow within a few decades, absorbing CO2 all the while. Burning down forests and replacing them with cities or farmland is a larger concern.

CocoaNutCakery wrote:[stuff about national parks and poorly placed measuring stations]


By picking national park data, you are limiting your results to the United States. If you take a look at the US temperature data, you find the same slight decrease, despite including your allegation that the data is acquired poorly. Therefore, your allegation of bad data does not explain the reported temperature increase worldwide, and is therefore probably false.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:13 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:The government, unfortunately, creates scientific consensus by way of not funding studies that they think are a waste of time. Since the official government stance is that global warming is real and man-made, the only studies that get funded are ones whose applications indicate that they're going to prove that.

This argument is frankly nonsense. First, the idea that governments all over the world have an interest in inventing global warming is completely contrary to what they've been doing; there have been lots of administrations that have been trying not to take action, or trying to cast doubt, sometimes to the point of muzzling scientists. If you're going to claim the consensus comes from them, rather than the weight of the evidence, you're going to need a lot more explaining than just your claim it's happening.

Second, beside governments there are the think-tanks like the Heartland and Fraser Institutes. Nearly all the objections to global warming are associated with them, they're very well-publicized, and they do manage to do a lot of nitpicking existing studies. So if they somehow never manage to actually establish contrary results, it's not going to be for want of funding, but want of evidence.

Third, the idea that all studies determine what they will find in advance is simply not how things work. If nothing else, there was the Berkeley Earth Project; before its results were determined, its methods were originally praised by denialists like Anthony Watts, and its funding included groups like the Koch brothers that have interests in downplaying global warming. So they obviously were hoping the end results weren't going to be warming, and guess what – they still were.

To sum up: the claim that the consensus is the result of politics rather than overwhelming evidence is completely false, and honestly, projection on behalf of denialist groups, many of whom are plainly arguing based on their payroll (see aformentioned think-tanks).


Except I pointed to specific examples of when politics has enforced a consensus and when scientists have been at a loss for funds because the government wouldn't fund research that called into question the "consensus." Furthermore, if you actually clicked the source link on that link, you'll find that Watts claims that he was actually misled as to the methodology used and had a number of complaints about the process, which he was led to believe he could address in discussion and would be taken into consideration.

Furthermore, calling Watts a denialist is flat-out wrong. Watts has stated, many times, that he agrees that the Earth is warming, but he disagrees as to the magnitude and causes.

You also seem to assume that the Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc have complete say over the "official stance." That's misconstruing what I'm saying. In the example of nutrition, the official stance came from the United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. In other words, a Democratic Congressman that operated under two Republican administrations.

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:17 pm UTC

So, what should 'we' (whatever that is) do?

Research into fusion primarily and renewables secondarily for where the power grid can't reach efficiently.
Aerosol sulphates? Artificial trees vacuuming up CO2? More stuff from that horribly inaccurate FotW game I've played a bit too much?

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:22 pm UTC

philip1201 wrote:
Protip: We are currently in an ice age.


ctdonath wrote:Historical cyclical temperature change (per Antarctic core samples, with modern sensors filling in at the end):

Spoiler:
Image


These claims are contradictory.


*Big gasp*

No.

In fact, hell no. An ice age is pretty much defined by permanent polar ice caps. Since the Triassic, that accounts for slightly more than 1% of Earth's history. There wouldn't be ice core data without polar ice caps. Pretty simple concept.

philip1201 wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:[stuff about national parks and poorly placed measuring stations]


By picking national park data, you are limiting your results to the United States. If you take a look at the US temperature data, you find the same slight decrease, despite including your allegation that the data is acquired poorly. Therefore, your allegation of bad data does not explain the reported temperature increase worldwide, and is therefore probably false.


You might want to look at the weather station information there, bub. It doesn't actually show the average of the US. It shows one weather station 16 miles from the center of the United States. So... congrats. You've found that a single station located at this airport has a slight decline in temperature trend since 1939. Thanks. That's very likely a bad station anyway.

Research into fusion primarily and renewables secondarily.


Shit, son, I am all about fusion.

I also have a friend that's all about Solar Roadways, but I'm skeptical as to their viability.

Honestly, people talking about "switching to electric" don't seem to understand that we need more wind, solar, and nuclear fission/fusion in order for electric cars to be viable. Electricity generation currently produces a lot of CO2 (and other stuff that is pretty bad for you, TBH).

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:26 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Except I pointed to specific examples of when politics has enforced a consensus and when scientists have been at a loss for funds because the government wouldn't fund research that called into question the "consensus."

But a handful of specific examples from one political climate don't begin to justify the idea that the 97% agreement is all the result of pressure by governments. Especially since as I said there are many administrations who have been rather against the idea. And while it's true presidents don't have complete say over the official stance, the idea that they can go so far as muzzling scientists who speak on an issue and still no opportunity to provide any funding to objectors is rather weak. So I stand my point: there is enough money and support out there for people with studies that might show conflicting results, that claiming the current consensus is an artifact from funding bias is risible.

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Furthermore, if you actually clicked the source link on that link, you'll find that Watts claims that he was actually misled as to the methodology used and had a number of complaints about the process, which he was led to believe he could address in discussion and would be taken into consideration.

I'm aware Watts found a lot of criticisms of the Berkeley Earth Project after it turned out to give results he disagreed with. That wasn't my point, though. It's that you described studies as receiving funding only when they are sure to support AGW from the get-go, and the initial support from people like him shows that wasn't actually the case.
Last edited by chenille on Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:39 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

callmeindy
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:31 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby callmeindy » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:32 pm UTC

Given that the Chinese make more greenhouse gas than the USA, EU, and Japan combined and are building one coal plant a day and the average Chinese is still a dirt poor peasant who will rise up and overthrow the CCP if the CCP doesn't keep standards of living rising, I don't see any realistic plan for stopping it.

If it ever gets to be a serious problem for the species even with current tech, couldn't we just nuke the Sahara until we get enough dust in the air to cause a "nuclear winter" to counteract the "industrial summer"? Cancer rates would go up worldwide of course, but to a relatively small degree (going off memory, roughly the equivalent of if the entire world smoked a couple of cigarettes a day) that it would probably performable to oranges in Antarctica.

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:39 pm UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways

This is really interesting if perhaps overambitious. Thanks Cocoa!
Tell us more about fusion? :)

callmeindy wrote:Given that the Chinese make more greenhouse gas than the USA, EU, and Japan combined and are building one coal plant a day and the average Chinese is still a dirt poor peasant who will rise up and overthrow the CCP if the CCP doesn't keep standards of living rising, I don't see any realistic plan for stopping it.

If it ever gets to be a serious problem for the species even with current tech, couldn't we just nuke the Sahara until we get enough dust in the air to cause a "nuclear winter" to counteract the "industrial summer"? Cancer rates would go up worldwide of course, but to a relatively small degree (going off memory, roughly the equivalent of if the entire world smoked a couple of cigarettes a day) that it would probably performable to oranges in Antarctica.


There are better ways of engineering a temperature decrease than nuking ourselves, but I don't feel comfortable detailing any of them. Check out aerosol sulphates for one contender I believe is strong (but it is believed it will change weather patterns).

I do think we should nuke the Martian ice though, it might help create an atmosphere!
Last edited by cwDeici on Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:43 pm UTC

Ya know, I'm getting pretty tired of all this /.-ian flame wars over data and nondata concerning climate change.

What happened to the good old days when the responses to an xkcd comic proposing a sea level rise would either have been about the next Zanclean Flood or a drain plug in the bottom of the ocean ?

I realize it's Grumpy Monday on a week that's going to finish off with a triskadekaphobic day, but c'mon already!
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

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

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby cwDeici » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:45 pm UTC

I think it's better to just assume the denialists and doomsayers have internalized a bit too much propaganda and ignore them.

Let's discuss solutions! :)

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby HES » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:46 pm UTC

cwDeici wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways

This is really interesting if perhaps overambitious.

Overambitious indeed. It's been popular on social media lately but the idea is... misguided. A fork and a spoon are more useful than an expensive spork.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26819
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:49 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Honestly, while the Arctic is near-completely landlocked and there's a continent on the South Pole, the complete melting of the poles is, frankly, an absurd notion in the first place. Even if temperatures around the Equator rise 4.5 C, that hotter air actually can't circulate well to the poles. This is the reason why we have polar ice caps in the first place.

Do you have a citation for that? Because most models I recall predict more warming at the poles than the equator, so 4.5 degrees worldwide average might amount to half that in the tropics and twice that in the arctic.
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)

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:53 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:Except I pointed to specific examples of when politics has enforced a consensus and when scientists have been at a loss for funds because the government wouldn't fund research that called into question the "consensus."

But a handful of specific examples from one political climate don't begin to justify the idea that the 97% agreement is all the result of pressure by governments. Especially since as I said there are many administrations who have been rather against the idea. And while it's true presidents don't have complete say over the official stance, the idea that they can go so far as muzzling scientists who speak on an issue and still no opportunity to redirect funding to objects is rather weak. So I stand my point: the idea that the support is all from funding bias is risible.


Except I pointed out several specific examples from multiple political climates, including the current one about AGW. Would you like me to quote the many, many people that point out the issue? John Christy, for example? Gary Taubes? Robert Colvin isn't even outspoken on funding issues, but he admits that this is a serious issue.

chenille wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:Furthermore, if you actually clicked the source link on that link, you'll find that Watts claims that he was actually misled as to the methodology used and had a number of complaints about the process, which he was led to believe he could address in discussion and would be taken into consideration.

I'm aware Watts found a lot of criticisms of the Berkeley Earth Project after it turned out to give results he disagreed with. That wasn't my point, though. It's that you described studies as receiving funding only when they are sure to support AGW from the get-go, and the initial support from people like him shows that wasn't actually the case.


Ignore the methodology issues and question the motive. A good lesson in how to argue using logical fallacies. Thank you. And once again, the issue is that he was misled as to the methodology that they would use.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:02 pm UTC

cwDeici wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways

This is really interesting if perhaps overambitious. Thanks Cocoa!
Tell us more about fusion? :)


I'm not current on fusion research, sadly. The last time I read anything about it was at least 5 years ago, but what I did read was pretty positive and the research was advancing. There are plenty of people here that are far more knowledgeable about the subject than I am.

gmalivuk wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:Honestly, while the Arctic is near-completely landlocked and there's a continent on the South Pole, the complete melting of the poles is, frankly, an absurd notion in the first place. Even if temperatures around the Equator rise 4.5 C, that hotter air actually can't circulate well to the poles. This is the reason why we have polar ice caps in the first place.

Do you have a citation for that? Because most models I recall predict more warming at the poles than the equator, so 4.5 degrees worldwide average might amount to half that in the tropics and twice that in the arctic.


I already linked a source that showed that Antarctica is mostly cooling, but I did also find a graph in my travels that showed increasing temperature at the equater and reduced temperatures at the poles, if you'd give me some time to find it. I'm not making promises claiming that I can, just that I'm going to need more time if I can.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26819
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Listing off a handful of individual names who agree with you doesn't make your argument look stronger, it makes your argument look more cherry-picked and fallacious, and like anecdotal arguments from authority are the only ones you can make.

In other words, it makes you look a lot like the Discovery Institute with their list of a couple hundred folks who disagree with evolution ( http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ ). You don't have anything like a consensus of experts on your side, so you have to make a mountain out of the molehill of folks who do agree with you.

Edit: Do you think you could find something from a climate source rather than a geology website, that's maybe less than 6 years old?
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)

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:16 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Ignore the methodology issues and question the motive. A good lesson in how to argue using logical fallacies.

For serious? Your whole discussion was about motives; you brought up the idea that the general agreement on climate change was just the result of governments who wanted to fund it, and researchers who wanted that funding, although as I said the idea that there's no funding for disagreement is not at all supported. And now you're going to fault me for mentioning motives. Very nice.

Well, I for one am happy to drop them; I think they were a red herring anyway. So we can stop trying to make it seem like the positions out there are less than honest and casting aspersions on people, and just take things as given, accept that the work done by researchers and their peer reviewed articles have been all but unanimous in favor of global warming being real, human-driven, and significant, and go from there.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:35 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Listing off a handful of individual names who agree with you doesn't make your argument look stronger, it makes your argument look more cherry-picked and fallacious, and like anecdotal arguments from authority are the only ones you can make.


Except that I pointed out specific examples of where this has happened. The examples I listed are merely people that have gone through even more examples. Gary Taubes in particular is someone whose job partially involves going through the issues of politics in scientific funding. Anyone that's been a dissenter to whatever's been fashionable in science can tell you how impossible it is to get funding and how damaging it can be to one's career. This isn't limited to nutrition or climate sciences, however. Even physics has these issues.

Like QED, this work didn’t come out of any single genius scientist – there is no Einstein of strings. Edward Witten is most often mentioned as the leader of the string theory movement, but John Schwarz, Michael Green and many others have also made huge contributions. It has been observed that, in the early days, string theory was developed by middle-aged scientists because, according to the sociology of the physics community at the time, young scientists were too precarious in their careers to risk working on something as speculative as ten-dimensional harmonics. Nowadays of course, string theory is fairly mainstream, and it’s working on radical alternatives to string theory that’s more likely to get you denied tenure.


John Schwarz, by the way, had been denied tenure at Princeton because of his work on string theory. Not sure about the others. (Edit: And that's not even going into Special Relativity being "a little uncanny.")

gmalivuk wrote:Edit: Do you think you could find something from a climate source rather than a geology website, that's maybe less than 6 years old?


As I said, I'm looking for it.

chenille wrote:For serious? Your whole discussion was about motives; you brought up the idea that the general agreement on climate change was just the result of governments who wanted to fund it, and researchers who wanted that funding, although as I said the idea that there's no funding for disagreement is not at all supported. And now you're going to fault me for mentioning motives. Very nice.


Except that's not what's happening here. You're dismissing issues that Watts had with the methodology in favor of attacking his motives. You're ignoring the fact that my addressing the motives is to point to why there are so many papers published in favor of a particular viewpoint, often with flawed methodology (as Fall et al. showed).
Last edited by CocoaNutCakery on Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Netreker0 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:36 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
McBee wrote:I am saddened to see that in a forum which is supopsed to attract people who science, so many people, some of them probably scientists (not climatologists, but scientists nevertheless) disagree with ... actual climate scientists.

There's a valid concern about professional bias: if you participate in X as a career, you probably have incentive to support it. Considering that there's money in proving "humans are to blame for global climate change" (nee "warming", nee "cooling", as fads change) but not in the alternatives, and dissenters from that view are labeled "heretics", little surprise there's lots of peer-reviewed back-patting and little approved dissent.


ctdonath,
I don't think McBee is calling out the people who are merely trying their best to point out possible flaws in the research or in the system, and who actually articulate the specific flaws and how they might taint the results. (In other words, people engaged in the actual scientific process.) He's calling out guys like beerme, who made an account here solely so that the first post could be a "neutral" voice expressing how "dubious" he finds the science. And probably Doug. Reading through the other posts, you see most people actually don't disagree with the climate science out of hand. Some are like you simply pointing out flaws that should be addressed or at the very least acknowledged, either in climate theory or in Randall's palm-tree theory. jpk, as always, takes this opportunity to wow us with his scientific superiority in fields ranging from psychology and neurobiology to (now) climate science in his usual pleasant manner, but he seems to generally agree with climate scientists. (Though it's hard to say with jpk. Usually after he's done telling us how we're morons for believing a certain thing that even a high school science teacher would know is wrong, and we ask him to articulate exactly what we're wrong about, he'll just smugly say that he's not paid to educate us before vanishing into the ether. So it can be rather hard to pin down his actual position on things.)

McBee,
I don't think this forum necessarily attracts as many scientists as you think. Xkcd, the comic, attracts people who love science. It also attracts people who love sarcasm, and I think more than a few people who love using sarcasm to be superior to or dismissive of positions that are poorly conceived or obviously wrong, yet strongly clung to. Science means being open to being questioned, to being criticized, to being wrong. It means being open to new ideas and to revisiting old ones that were previously discarded. If you truly adhere to scientific principles, then you won't punish someone for disagree with you, and you won't make someone feel bad for expressing an idea that's later proven wrong. In my experience, most scientists aren't Craig Ventur or Richard Dawkins, or even those numerous guys on the front lines of the climate wars. They generally aren't the sort to talk down to someone for being less knowledgeable in a field, or even for aggressively pushing bad information. But they also get tired of dealing with people pushing the theory of a five-thousand year old flat earth with the same patience and civility they give to their colleagues. Xkcd give them an outlet for that impulse and a bit of wish fulfillment. At the same time, that aspect of xkcd attracts another sort, the kind that simply likes to be right when others are wrong. For them, science is merely something they can use to give themselves more authority, to be more right and make others who disagree with them more wrong. These are the guys who didn't understand Ten Thousand (http://xkcd.com/1053/) at all.

Xkcd, the forum, attracts a subset of readers of xkcd, the comic. It wouldn't surprise me if that subset weeds out a fair number of actual scientists. Back when I wanted to be a scientist, my work as a lab assistant didn't leave me much down time, and much of my own time was spent reading journals and doing other things meant to advance my career. I tried to modulate my forum use since I tend to get easily trolled, and if I'm going to be on the internet until three hours before work, I'd rather be MUDding. Now that I'm an attorney, I have a shocking amount of at work down time, which is why I'm here now, and how I've managed to read all of Darths and Droids in the last couple of months. Perhaps I overgeneralize, but it does seem that people who actually practice science for a living are less inclined or less able to spend hours online arguing about science with non-scientists. Even here.

nathanho
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:37 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby nathanho » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:46 pm UTC

Are some scientists so infallible and arrogant that they can't see the past? One obvious constant over time is that orthodox science has been consistently disproven using the scientific method. Anyone who speaks in absolutes about the science of something as fuzzy as climate change is at best an ideologue and at worst a hypocrite.

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 09, 2014 6:53 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Except that's not what's happening here. You're dismissing issues that Watts had with the methodology in favor of attacking his motives.

I was dismissing Watts's later concerns, admittedly somewhat flippantly, because I don't think they say anything about your claim that studies only get funding if they are sure to uphold AGW. I was giving the Berkeley Earth Project as an example where that plainly wasn't the case, since it received endorsement and funding from people who aren't pushing for that outcome. While funding bias does exist, it's not nearly the all-but-complete shut-out you describe, and so it's not an excuse for ignoring the all-but-complete agreement throughout the field.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:06 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:Except that's not what's happening here. You're dismissing issues that Watts had with the methodology in favor of attacking his motives.

I was dismissing Watts's later concerns, admittedly somewhat flippantly, because I don't think they say anything about your claim that studies only get funding if they are sure to uphold AGW. I was giving the Berkeley Earth Project as an example where that plainly wasn't the case, since it received endorsement and funding from people who aren't pushing for that outcome. While funding bias does exist, it's not nearly the all-but-complete shut-out you describe, and so it's not an excuse for ignoring the all-but-complete agreement throughout the field.


Except that I have pointed out many, many, many examples otherwise. And if the Berkeley Earth Project produced results contrary to the currently held views, what then would you say about Watts' input and Koch funding?

Am I now allowed to introduce studies following just as bad methodology (if not worse) that were funded by oil companies?

This is aside from the fact that they got that support by misleading those about their methodology (according to Watts).

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby ctdonath » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:13 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:I looked for a cited source, because your graph doesn't match data from the British Antarctic Survey...

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/ ... eutnat.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomal ... 00mean.dat

I'm not looking to cherry-pick, neither am I going to comprehensively delve into the issue. (Why is it a brief comment on a friendly chat site, about a cartoon no less, is so often demanded to constitute rigorous analysis unto peer-reviewed encyclopedic thoroughness? and, if not fast assailable, subjected to berating the writer over his unrelated sociopolitical interests?)
Fact is climate does have long-term cycles of a roughly 12°C swing, we're at the peak (so yeah it's been rising), and we're due for a long decline in global temps. And that's without human involvement.

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 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:20 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:(Why is it a brief comment on a friendly chat site, about a cartoon no less, is so often demanded to constitute rigorous analysis unto peer-reviewed encyclopedic thoroughness? and, if not fast assailable, subjected to berating the writer over his unrelated sociopolitical interests?)
Dude, are you serious? Because you're posting misinformation and obfuscating reality via fairly dishonest and tired debate tactics, which are, unfortunately, fairly linked to your sociopolitical interests.
ctdonath wrote:Fact is climate does have long-term cycles of a roughly 12°C swing, we're at the peak (so yeah it's been rising), and we're due for a long decline in global temps. And that's without human involvement.
This is Climate Science 101; yes, there are long-term cycles, but le gasp, they are linked to CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are... you know what, fuck it, you aren't interested in hearing this, or educating yourself.

Your second link is dead, your first link is just a pile of data that you haven't said anything about.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:38 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Edit: Do you think you could find something from a climate source rather than a geology website, that's maybe less than 6 years old?


Here's a post by Bob Tisdale. He also has monthly updates in regards to SST anomalies. The Antarctic region in particular tends to cool quite a bit.

Izawwlgood wrote:This is Climate Science 101; yes, there are long-term cycles, but le gasp, they are linked to CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are... you know what, fuck it, you aren't interested in hearing this, or educating yourself.


Science 101: Correlation does not prove causation. A>B, B>A, C>A&B, and A<>B are all possible explanations (">" being "causes" and "<>" being "has no effect").

For example, in a previous post, I pointed out the issues with using city weather stations for data, as well as how those could show a link in current CO2 concentrations and temperature differences, but with C (human activity such as electricity usage and population concentration) affecting A & B independently, rather than A affecting B. In order for correlative data to be taken as causative evidence (not proof, mind you, just evidence), it also must be consistent. The existence of "paradoxes" calls correlative data into question, and causative data, for that matter.

Ray Kremer
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Ray Kremer » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:40 pm UTC

I wonder if it's even worth posting. Arguing about climate science politics hardly ever is.

Mainly, this is a vast oversimplification of the whole thing. "Earth average temperature" is generally meaningless since the planet is made up of many individual climate regions. I'm not sure what the 20th century "norm" is purported as being, but let's look at it this way. During the ice age, all areas of the Earth covered in glacier had to have a year-round temperature no higher than 0°C. So if the 20th century norm was 4.5° above that, it must have been about 40°F year-round in all those areas. Maybe we can all check with our parents and grandparents, I don't think that was the case.

Economics is known as the "dismal science" because there's no way to perform controlled, repeatable experiments and the amount of contributing variables is overwhelmingly complex. There are at least two other sciences that fit this definition: nutrition, and climate. The predictions of climate scientists politicians over the past few decades have been notoriously incorrect, and that's just the supposedly serious stuff, not counting the clearly outlandish things like "Katrina-level hurricanes every year" and "no more snow in Great Britain".

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:48 pm UTC

You know, with the debate about the reality and magnitude of global warming, we've kind of drawn attention away from cooler topics, like alternative energy sources. What about wireless power? Fusion? Solar roadways? Impractical on a large scale, perhaps, but would it be possible for roadways to be replaced as they go under construction? Or at least possible for a small percent to do this? Could they supplement power for home generation practices (replacing a driveway with the solar roadway things in addition to putting solar panels on the roof, for example)? What about geothermal power?

Economics is known as the "dismal science" because there's no way to perform controlled, repeatable experiments and the amount of contributing variables is overwhelmingly complex. There are at least two other sciences that fit this definition: nutrition, and climate.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. False. There are a lot of nutritional clinical trials that are well-designed and repeatable. The problem is that so much of nutritional studies is tied up in observational studies that can't accurately take into account health consciousness.

And, of course, there's a lot of bias. So if, say, something's effectiveness fits into a 90% CI, there will be plenty of people claiming that the study debunked said something being effective at all because it wasn't at 95%.

Oi.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26819
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:51 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:Science 101: Correlation does not prove causation. A>B, B>A, C>A&B, and A<>B are all possible explanations (">" being "causes" and "<>" being "has no effect").
Sure, if we have literally no other information or theories whatsoever, those are all viable possibilities.

However, the physics behind how greenhouse gases work is well-known and well-established, and while there may also be feedback whereby higher temperatures liberate more CO2, that's even worse for us because it means that slight warming from our own CO2 could cause more warming from the CO2 released by the slight warming, even if we cut our emissions completely.
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)

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:58 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:Science 101: Correlation does not prove causation. A>B, B>A, C>A&B, and A<>B are all possible explanations (">" being "causes" and "<>" being "has no effect").
Sure, if we have literally no other information or theories whatsoever, those are all viable possibilities.

However, the physics behind how greenhouse gases work is well-known and well-established, and while there may also be feedback whereby higher temperatures liberate more CO2, that's even worse for us because it means that slight warming from our own CO2 could cause more warming from the CO2 released by the slight warming, even if we cut our emissions completely.


Except that you're ignoring the paradoxes. The physics behind a lot of stuff has been well-established, but the physics behind the effect of CO2 (in particular, how much of an effect it can have) is very theoretical. As Ray Kremer pointed out, actually conducting controlled experiments on the issue is fraught with methodological problems. You can't actually prove causatively that CO2 has a certain level of effect on temperatures, so it's correlative and theoretical (hypothetical would actually be a better term, but misusing scientific terminology seems to be a pastime these days). The theoretical part seeks to explain the correlative part, but the correlative part has paradoxes. When paradoxes exist in correlative evidence, they need to either be explained or the correlative evidence needs to be called into question.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26819
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:05 pm UTC

We know how CO2 absorbs and emits EM radiation. Therefore we know that increasing CO2 will causally lead to higher temperatures. The fact that we can't pin down exactly the extent that this effect should have comes from the fact that the atmosphere and global climate are extraordinarily complex, and therefore that they include a hell of a lot of other things besides CO2.

But going from that complexity to your claim that we therefore know nothing about which direction (if any) causality goes between CO2 and temperature is extraordinarily dishonest on your part.
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)

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Netreker0 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:15 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote: Anyone that's been a dissenter to whatever's been fashionable in science can tell you how impossible it is to get funding and how damaging it can be to one's career. This isn't limited to nutrition or climate sciences, however. Even physics has these issues.


It's funny how you pick string theory as your example. By the way, can you point out the specific paragraph in that linked article that actually supports or even addresses your assertions? The best I could glean was a brief aside about loop theory and the computational model of physics. Does that imply that you feel loop theory doesn't get enough funding?

But getting back on track, anyone that's ever spent time in science can tell you that the definition of being "a dissenter to whatever's been fashionable in science" doesn't mean what you think it means, and string theory is a good example is a good illustration of why. String theory is a way of examining theoretical physics. String theory is also fashionable. You might be a bit more likely to get funding if you say you're studying string theory. But unlike your assertions with climate science, "string theory" isn't a simple falsifiable hypothesis. (Unless you count "I hypothesize that using string theory as our mathematical model of the universe will/will not one day yield a theory that will actually have useful, predictive.") String theory is a methodology that says, "Where does the math go if we assume our present math is correct and crank it up to eleven?" As far as I know, string theory is still very incomplete and has yielded few predictions for what we don't know yet, and those few predictions have been well beyond our ability to verify. There certainly aren't politicians or companies planning to benefit one way or the other from a string theory prediction. The "fashionable" bias for string theory isn't for a certain result, it's simply the assumption--right or wrong--that string theory is where the newest science will happen, an assumption that makes headlines. String theorists get funding because being the guy who completes string theory, or proves it, or completely disproves it, will get you headlines.

tl;dr version: In science, areas of study are fashionable, not results. In terms of grants (at least ones not coming directly from private companies), what the results are almost irrelevant compared to simply getting work done in the fashionable area. If anything, if you believe in the cynical, grant-driven model of the scientific community, manipulating results to get a near complete consensus on anything makes zero sense. I mean, there is no funding for research on the law of conservation of mass anymore, is there? If I wanted to ensure myself work for life, I would get with my colleagues and make sure that both sides had its fair share of strong, contradictory results.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby ctdonath » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:17 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Your second link is dead, your first link is just a pile of data that you haven't said anything about.

First link is raw core sample temperature data which the initial graph merely graphed. You're not interested enough in [i]discussion[/] (to wit: sans berating) to bother with more detail, much of which you can deduce via the URL itself.
The second link was, likewise, raw modern temperature data needed to fill in the gaps core samples could not provide, presented in a different color to indicate differing data.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby ctdonath » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:23 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Dude, are you serious?

Yup. That's why I posted actual data. Interesting that you'd rather assail my utterly unrelated sociopolitical views (and, likewise, do so via innuendo and imputation rather than actual factual debate) than address the fact that climate change IS cyclical, we're at a natural peak, and due for a long cold spell. Your berating tone is not exactly conducive to honest debate; I'll await your actual addressing of the data rather than assailing my interest in protecting innocent life, and failing any addressing of that data methinks I'll leave you to the contents of your own mind (to quote D.N.Adams: "You mean you can read my mind?" "Yes." "And?" "It amazes me how you manage to live in anything that small.").

Cheers!

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:30 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:We know how CO2 absorbs and emits EM radiation. Therefore we know that increasing CO2 will causally lead to higher temperatures. The fact that we can't pin down exactly the extent that this effect should have comes from the fact that the atmosphere and global climate are extraordinarily complex, and therefore that they include a hell of a lot of other things besides CO2.

But going from that complexity to your claim that we therefore know nothing about which direction (if any) causality goes between CO2 and temperature is extraordinarily dishonest on your part.


About that absorption and radiation...

Netreker0 wrote:By the way, can you point out the specific paragraph in that linked article that actually supports or even addresses your assertions?


You might want to, you know, read the quote and the line under said quote that immediately followed that link.

Netreker0 wrote:In science, areas of study are fashionable, not results


I'm so glad you made that claim!

(Edit: Side note. I have spent some time combing over nutritional studies and I've found a lot of conclusions that flat-out don't match the results and a lot of results that were clearly drawn from bad methodology, study design, or randomization. So... yes, results often are fashionable.)

Netreker0 wrote:String theorists get funding because being the guy who completes string theory, or proves it, or completely disproves it, will get you headlines.


That's actually why they study it. How in the world does this relate to being denied tenure for studying it in the 70's? Or it being impossible to get funding for homocysteine theory in that same time period? Or, again, Fall et al.'s funding sources? I once again bring up the paradox issue. Your claim of a perfect science world existing fails to take into account the many, many, many paradoxes that have existed and do exist.
Last edited by CocoaNutCakery on Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:39 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Your second link is dead, your first link is just a pile of data that you haven't said anything about.

First link is raw core sample temperature data which the initial graph merely graphed. You're not interested enough in [i]discussion[/] (to wit: sans berating) to bother with more detail, much of which you can deduce via the URL itself.
The second link was, likewise, raw modern temperature data needed to fill in the gaps core samples could not provide, presented in a different color to indicate differing data.
Funny that you call me the one not interested in discussion, while you fail to respond to two thirds of my post.

Your link was raw data. In the absence of you saying anything about that data, or, perhaps, plotting it, I'll just have to agree with you that yes, that is a txt document full of numbers. You haven't supported anything by showing it. Jackpot linked you to plotted data that contradicted your claim, and you tried refuting this by linked to just a pile of numbers, a pile of numbers, which, mind you, are not addressing what Jackpot pointed out, namely, that if you track MODERN temperature changes, you'll see we are quite outside the normal parameters as recorded from approximately half a million years of ice core data. You've linked the ice core data, in raw form, again. Which, again, does not address Jackpot's point.

EDIT: Oh, I see, a double post reply;
ctdonath wrote:Yup. That's why I posted actual data. Interesting that you'd rather assail my utterly unrelated sociopolitical views (and, likewise, do so via innuendo and imputation rather than actual factual debate) than address the fact that climate change IS cyclical, we're at a natural peak, and due for a long cold spell. Your berating tone is not exactly conducive to honest debate; I'll await your actual addressing of the data rather than assailing my interest in protecting innocent life, and failing any addressing of that data methinks I'll leave you to the contents of your own mind (to quote D.N.Adams: "You mean you can read my mind?" "Yes." "And?" "It amazes me how you manage to live in anything that small.").
Actually, no one 'assailed' your views, we simply observed the connection to having them and generally possessing the bias that you seem to. Jackpot linked you to data that refuted your claims, and you did nothing to actually factually address that.

So, here; yes, climate change is cyclical, and yes, we're at a natural peak (put a pin in that point for a second), but no, we're not due for a cold spell.
A ) Climate change is cyclical, and we're significantly outside the cycle.
B ) Yes we're at a peak, but again, we're significantly outside the cycle.
C ) Global temperature averages are climbing, not falling.

To the... contents... Sigh... Touche sir, touche, your indignation that I've not given this notion of 'equal coverage' or 'just listening to the debate' much credence has touched me, and I shall endeavor to break free of the shackles that bind me to my thought patterns. Thank you, oh climate science Prometheus, for gifting me with the gift of skepticism!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby Crissa » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:37 pm UTC

synp wrote:
Crissa wrote:Interesting that someone would compare an Earth with an atmosphere and climate that no human could survive 'normal'.


What atmosphere and climate is that?


How about this post viewtopic.php?f=7&t=109136#p3602435 and perhaps the 'Cretaceous' like from the comic? It's kinda hard to have a discussion when the posts one responded to seem to no longer be here.

There were days last year where several major cities were barely inhabitable. This is only going to get worse - and our method for cooling buildings can't cope with it. Raise the average climate by a couple degrees, and major cities will becomes uninhabitable. That ought to be scary stuff.

-Crissa

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: 1379: "4.5 Degrees"

Postby EMTP » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:40 pm UTC

beerme737 wrote:FIRST!!!

I have to say, the science behind "man-caused" global warming is dubious, at best.


I don't know which of those sentences is more inane and silly.

That's why I posted actual data. Interesting that you'd rather assail my utterly unrelated sociopolitical views (and, likewise, do so via innuendo and imputation rather than actual factual debate) than address the fact that climate change IS cyclical, we're at a natural peak, and due for a long cold spell.


That incorrect, sorry. The long-term natural cycles are incredibly slow relative to AGW, and the greenhouse gases we've already released have utterly overwhelmed them.

Statistically speaking, it's a good bet that your sociopolitical views are related to your denial of climate science. Few people fall into these errors without the "help" of cognitive bias.

Image

Economics is known as the "dismal science" because there's no way to perform controlled, repeatable experiments and the amount of contributing variables is overwhelmingly complex. There are at least two other sciences that fit this definition: nutrition, and climate.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. False. There are a lot of nutritional clinical trials that are well-designed and repeatable. The problem is that so much of nutritional studies is tied up in observational studies that can't accurately take into account health consciousness.

And, of course, there's a lot of bias. So if, say, something's effectiveness fits into a 90% CI, there will be plenty of people claiming that the study debunked said something being effective at all because it wasn't at 95%.

Oi.


Well said. There are also plenty of controlled experiments in climate science, just not on the scale of an entire planet. If you want to demonstrate that CO2 traps heat, for example, you can do that one in your garage, or even your kitchen. Many sciences are in the same boat: astronomy is not dismal because you can't move planets.
Last edited by EMTP on Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:31 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acunning40 and 105 guests