Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

Yeoh Yeo! whatcha on about Dude......

Edited May 29, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

National Survey: Nearly 90% Of Americans Say Government Should Act On Global Warming, Push Ahead On Clean Energy

Climate change continues to be a touchstone issue in US politics, one that casts a harsh, sharp light not only on a bitterly divided, “dysfunctional†US Congress, but on the state of the United States’ system of representative democracy, and even more broadly, on the interface between science and policy.

 

 

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/national-survey-nearly-90-of-americans-say-government-should-act-on-global-warming-push-ahead-on-clean-energy/

[VillagePlank]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-consensus-denial.html#.UaTZZtHt7HF.twitter

 

Made me laugh. Out loud, actually. All I'd like to add to the recipe is argumentum ad populum, with a strong dash of  appeal to authority, and sprinkle a little onus probandi fallacy to taste.

 

Edited May 30, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Made me laugh. Out loud, actually. All I'd like to add to the recipe is argumentum ad populum, with a strong dash of  appeal to authority, and sprinkle a little onus probandi fallacy to taste.

 

 

Just to be clear, are you saying they apply to AGW belief/arguments?

 

 

[Methuselah]

Made me laugh. Out loud, actually. All I'd like to add to the recipe is argumentum ad populum, with a strong dash of  appeal to authority, and sprinkle a little onus probandi fallacy to taste.

 

A wee bit off-topic, but that's exactly what folks who blether on about referenda do all the time...it's always the way once politics get involved...But, this is a scientific matter; I couldn't care less how many Yanks think the Sun orbits around Manhattan...

[VillagePlank]

Just to be clear, are you saying they apply to AGW belief/arguments?

 

No I am saying they applying to the messengers of the AGW/beliefs and arguments,

[BornFromTheVoid]

No I am saying they applying to the messengers of the AGW/beliefs and arguments,

 

Ok, well I'd disagree somewhat.

The fallacy argumentum ad populum doesn't apply, because with AGW it's the weight of evidence, not popular opinion that drives consensus.

 

With argumentum ad auctoritatem, according to wiki, it applies when

-"Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert

cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter

any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning."-

Which isn't the case with AGW.

 

Finally, with onus probandi, there are mountains of evidence which support AGW, thus the proof, as far as I can see, has been provided.

[VillagePlank]

A wee bit off-topic, but that's exactly what folks who blether on about referenda do all the time...it's always the way once politics get involved...But, this is a scientific matter; I couldn't care less how many Yanks think the Sun orbits around Manhattan...

 

Absolutely

[VillagePlank]

 

Ok, well I'd disagree somewhat.

The fallacy argumentum ad populum doesn't apply, because with AGW it's the weight of evidence, not popular opinion that drives consensus.

 

With argumentum ad auctoritatem, according to wiki, it applies when

-"Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert

cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter

any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning."-

Which isn't the case with AGW.

 

Finally, with onus probandi, there are mountains of evidence which support AGW, thus the proof, as far as I can see, has been provided.

 

 

Hmmm. The pivot of the argument relies on the word 'proof' methinks.

 

It is, I think, been proven beyond doubt that the climate is warming, albeit very, very slowly at the moment; but attribution of that change is still a fluid argument; we see this all the time, and I'd bet a pint or two, that the 90% odd attribution to CO2 is likely to fall somewhat, perhaps significantly, in the next IPCC installment, and thus it isn't proven. What is proven, of course, is that CO2 is a GhG - it's the attribution and magnitude of the effect that's still an open question in my view.

 

Incidentally, why bother conducting a study (posted elsewhere) that investigates the quantity of papers supporting CO2 AGW if it not to be used a priori in the context of deductive reasoning?

 

WRT to onus probandi, it means that if I, say, have a valid argument, the onus is not on you to prove something else that effectively dismisses my argument; if you don't like the argument you must take apart the argument, not find alternative explanations.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Hmmm. The pivot of the argument relies on the word 'proof' methinks.

 

It is, I think, been proven beyond doubt that the climate is warming, albeit very, very slowly at the moment; but attribution of that change is still a fluid argument; we see this all the time, and I'd bet a pint or two, that the 90% odd attribution to CO2 is likely to fall somewhat, perhaps significantly, in the next IPCC installment, and thus it isn't proven. What is proven, of course, is that CO2 is a GhG - it's the attribution and magnitude of the effect that's still an open question in my view.

 

Incidentally, why bother conducting a study (posted elsewhere) that investigates the quantity of papers supporting CO2 AGW if it not to be used a priori in the context of deductive reasoning?

 

WRT to onus probandi, it means that if I, say, have a valid argument, the onus is not on you to prove something else that effectively dismisses my argument; if you don't like the argument you must take apart the argument, not find alternative explanations.

 

Yes, what we consider valid proof and whether we believe that attribution of warming to CO2 will change or not is likely to be key here. I don't see the attribution changing, and even if we say it's responsible for 90% of the warming rather than 100%+, I don't think that will throw much in to doubt.

I think when we look at climate warming, looking a sub climatological time-scales to determine it's rate of change is rather pointless, as that will be dominated by short lived variation, rather than climatological drivers, so the recent slow down in surface air temperature warming as evidence for a slow down in climate warming is a rather tenuous position imo.

Of course, climate sensitivity is still an open question to a degree. But questioning the sensitivity is one thing, questioning whether CO2 can cause warming at all is another thing entirely.

 

The study was to further demonstrate consensus among climate scientists and peer reviewed literature. As one of the main arguments for inaction on climate is the false idea that there is no consensus, so it's is important to dispell that myth.

 

With onus probandi, surely one must first prove they have a valid argument? Also, when producing an alternative argument against something that is well established, wouldn't one need to take apart the original argument before justifying their own alternative?

[Methuselah]

Yes, what we consider valid proof and whether we believe that attribution of warming to CO2 will change or not is likely to be key here. I don't see the attribution changing, and even if we say it's responsible for 90% of the warming rather than 100%+, I don't think that will throw much in to doubt.

I think when we look at climate warming, looking a sub climatological time-scales to determine it's rate of change is rather pointless, as that will be dominated by short lived variation, rather than climatological drivers, so the recent slow down in surface air temperature warming as evidence for a slow down in climate warming is a rather tenuous position imo.

Of course, climate sensitivity is still an open question to a degree. But questioning the sensitivity is one thing, questioning whether CO2 can cause warming at all is another thing entirely.

 

The study was to further demonstrate consensus among climate scientists and peer reviewed literature. As one of the main arguments for inaction on climate is the false idea that there is no consensus, so it's is important to dispell that myth.

 

With onus probandi, surely one must first prove they have a valid argument? Also, when producing an alternative argument against something that is well established, wouldn't one need to take apart the original argument before justifying their own alternative?

I'd be happy with any explanation that, not only explains what the established theory explains, also explains things which the established one doesn't...And so on and so on until there's nowt else wanting explained. IMO, merely pointing at what is unknown (and saying it is unknown) contributes nothing - we already know it is unknown...

[VillagePlank]

Yes, what we consider valid proof and whether we believe that attribution of warming to CO2 will change or not is likely to be key here. I don't see the attribution changing, and even if we say it's responsible for 90% of the warming rather than 100%+, I don't think that will throw much in to doubt.

Given that multiplicative factors that are nominally explained by feedbacks and feedforwards, I suspect that small changes will have an inordinate effect on the overall outcome; in much the same way that CO₂ is a trace gas and has an influence on the planet.

 

I think when we look at climate warming, looking a sub climatological time-scales to determine it's rate of change is rather pointless, as that will be dominated by short lived variation, rather than climatological drivers, so the recent slow down in surface air temperature warming as evidence for a slow down in climate warming is a rather tenuous position imo.

But I've already demonstrated the clear fall in the rate of change of temperature anomalies at the climatological timescale, here. What is tenuous about that work?

 

Of course, climate sensitivity is still an open question to a degree. But questioning the sensitivity is one thing, questioning whether CO2 can cause warming at all is another thing entirely.

It's the biggest question of them all. As you know (you corrected me) empirical evidence done by experiment on this very site, shows CO₂ as much less sensitive than the horror 4-6degC stuff purported only a few years ago (more or less half of the higher 'estimates') And that assumes that CO2 was responsible for 90% of the warming (which I don't accept, and I think the IPCC will be backtracking soon, too) Empirical stuff, here

 

The study was to further demonstrate consensus among climate scientists and peer reviewed literature. As one of the main arguments for inaction on climate is the false idea that there is no consensus, so it's is important to dispell that myth.

That's a strawman. Well, at least, as far as I am concerned. I realise that there is a consensus, but pandering, and starting one's argument because there is a consensus (ie it must be true because all of these important people say so) is just sooo plain stupid. The history of science is littered with such examples.

I'd be happy with any explanation that, not only explains what the established theory explains, also explains things which the established one doesn't...And so on and so on until there's nowt else wanting explained. IMO, merely pointing at what is unknown (and saying it is unknown) contributes nothing - we already know it is unknown...

 

Oh dear: the complete out-of-hand dismissal of both quantum mechanics, and relativity (since we know they don't reach your criteria)

Edited May 31, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

 

 

 

Oh dear: the complete out-of-hand dismissal of both quantum mechanics, and relativity (since we know they don't reach your criteria)

Not sure I can see what you mean, there...Relativity is a fine example of what I mean, though; it explains Newtonian and relativistic mechanics...Isn't the whole point of new theories an incremental in the power of explanation? No-one's ever called Newtonian mechanics wrong - just incomplete...As are both QM and Relativity. I see no reason to believe that climatology is any different? 

Edited May 31, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[VillagePlank]

Not sure I can see what you mean, there...Relativity is a fine example of what I mean, though; it explain Newtonian and relativistic mechanics...Isn't the whole point of new theories an incremental power of explanation? No-one's ever called Newtonian mechanics wrong - just incomplete...As are both QM and Relativity. I see no reason to believe that climatology is any different? 

 

Totally agree.

 

I see the CO₂ hypothesis as a first 'stab' With further refinement, we will end up getting to the details. Critical to moving forward, I think, is verification (are we building our models right?) and validation (are we building the right models?) is the key ....

 

(The problem is people have long memories and an awful lot was made of  the possible catastrophic outcomes - even though they were clearly at the higher end of estimates, even at the time. For example, the consensus that the last 50 years (ish) of the 20th century temperature rise can only be attributed to anthropological causes seems to be coming into some doubt, now, with some serious study/consideration beginning WRT to non-insolation solar output)

Edited May 31, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

 

 

(The problem is people have long memories and an awful lot was made of catastrophic outcomes - even though they were clearly at the higher end of estimates, even at the time. For example, the consensus that the last 50 years (ish) of the 20th century temperature rise can only be attributed to anthropological causes seems to be coming into some doubt, now)

That has been a major bugbear, I agree...

[VillagePlank]

That has been a major bugbear, I agree...

 

I suspect the normal 'regression to mean' style analysis will end up winning out here. OK, it's my gut feeling: solar will become more important, CO₂ less important; but both important players in the mix. The ratio between the two? Well, that's the attribution problem I was talking about above. The primary thing is, I think, that most people are least looking at the same hymn-sheet: OK, we might not all be singing the same song ....

[BornFromTheVoid]

Given that multiplicative factors that are nominally explained by feedbacks and feedforwards, I suspect that small changes will have an inordinate effect on the overall outcome; in much the same way that CO₂ is a trace gas and has an influence on the planet.

 

I don't think the difference would matter all that much. It's not like a computer similation where initial differences build to huge differences. This is just looking back through the record and attributing the warming to various things. The -ve feedbacks haven't worked too well so far.

 

But I've already demonstrated the clear fall in the rate of change of temperature anomalies at the climatological timescale, here. What is tenuous about that work?

 

Your demonstration shows no significant slow down in climatological temperature increases yet, just variations in the rate of increase. If taking the whole record, it would seem there is an increasing warming rate superimposed over a 60 year cycle. Only hindsight can give us any answers on whether we are seeing a long term slow down that I think.

 

It's the biggest question of them all. As you know (you corrected me) empirical evidence done by experiment on this very site, shows CO₂ as much less sensitive than the horror 4-6degC stuff purported only a few years ago (more or less half of the higher 'estimates') And that assumes that CO2 was responsible for 90% of the warming (which I don't accept, and I think the IPCC will be backtracking soon, too) Empirical stuff, here

 

If all climatology required was a couple of back of the hand math scribbles, I'm sure it would all be sorted now. Unfortunately, that's not the case, as you're well aware. The climate sensitivity stuff you did is a decent start, but little more. I know you can do better to demonstrate where the 4-6C sensitivity work was wrong, other than pandering to emotive dismissals such as horror stuff

 

 That's a strawman. Well, at least, as far as I am concerned. I realise that there is a consensus, but pandering, and starting one's argument because there is a consensus (ie it must be true because all of these important people say so) is just sooo plain stupid. The history of science is littered with such examples.

 

You'll have to explain how addressing a prime, and false, reason for climate inaction is a strawman argument. Because I'm just not seeing it.

The whole climate change/global warming argument isn't starting off on the basis that there is consensus (implying that to be the case is a classic strawman!), just in this instance, the study addresses the misconception that there is no consensus. For debate on what's causing warming, well the evidence and thousands of peer reviewed studies takes care of that side of things. 

 

[VillagePlank]

You'll have to explain how addressing a prime, and false, reason for climate inaction is a strawman argument. Because I'm just not seeing it.The whole climate change/global warming argument isn't starting off on the basis that there is consensus (implying that to be the case is a classic strawman!), just in this instance, the study addresses the misconception that there is no consensus. For debate on what's causing warming, well the evidence and thousands of peer reviewed studies takes care of that side of things.

Who, precisely, thinks there is no consensus? What problem is this trying to address?

[VillagePlank]

If all climatology required was a couple of back of the hand math scribbles, I'm sure it would all be sorted now. Unfortunately, that's not the case, as you're well aware. The climate sensitivity stuff you did is a decent start, but little more. I know you can do better to demonstrate where the 4-6C sensitivity work was wrong, other than pandering to emotive dismissals such as horror stuff

Well, in all honesty, 4-6 ^oC is a horror story isn't it? We talk of about 2C as the minimum limit to dangerous climate change - it really is a horror story if we double that, isn't it? Why would you think it wasn't? Why do you think, by implication with 'deniers' no doubt, that I attribute that to a person/study, and not to a consequence?

I think you mistake me with someone else.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

Your demonstration shows no significant slow down in climatological temperature increases yet, just variations in the rate of increase. If taking the whole record, it would seem there is an increasing warming rate superimposed over a 60 year cycle. Only hindsight can give us any answers on whether we are seeing a long term slow down that I think.

The 60 yr cycle appeared to be a red-herring, actually, it didn't match proxy records It might well work where the frequency modulates itself over very long time periods (rather like a spring), but I haven't the time to investigate this. Yes, only hindsight will show whether this is the case; and indeed, as you pointed out, the problem is that even if the 60 yr cycle did work, we still wouldn't get into a period where we would be posting negative anomalies because of the underlying trend. 

I don't think the difference would matter all that much. It's not like a computer similation where initial differences build to huge differences. This is just looking back through the record and attributing the warming to various things. The -ve feedbacks haven't worked too well so far.

Well, given that climate is a dynamical system, the chances of chaos being a prime descriptor are quite high, actually. And, as a matter of fact, this is borne out by the science, since climate models need to use ensembles (multiple runs with very small initial starting conditions) in order to get bounded ranges (which increase through time) This is a hallmark of chaotic mathematics.If the -ve feedbacks haven't worked, what's to say that current observations are a result of +ve feedbacks? I mean they all come out of the same (dynamical) computer model, don't they ... a model that has been tested against historical observations. You can't seriously be suggesting that some parts of the model work, some parts don't, and we can cherry pick which, even though the tests were done with the complete model? Edited May 31, 2013 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Regarding the comment in the other thread.

 

Carbon dioxide is the missing link to past global climate changes

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [brown University] — Increasingly, the Earth's climate appears to be more connected than anyone would have imagined. El Nino, the weather pattern that originates in a patch of the equatorial Pacific, can spawn heat waves and droughts as far away as Africa.

Now, a research team led by Brown University has established that the climate in the tropics over at least the last 2.7 million years changed in lockstep with the cyclical spread and retreat of ice sheets thousands of miles away in the Northern Hemisphere. The findings appear to cement the link between the recent Ice Ages and temperature changes in tropical oceans. Based on that new link, the scientists conclude that carbon dioxide has played the lead role in dictating global climate patterns, beginning with the Ice Ages and continuing today.

 

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/bu-cdi061510.php

 

 

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

Who, precisely, thinks there is no consensus? What problem is this trying to address?

 

Many of the self proclaimed sceptics/deniers. Much of the public, at least in the US.

 McCright et al., 2013

 

 

Well, in all honesty, 4-6 ^oC is a horror story isn't it? We talk of about 2C as the minimum limit to dangerous climate change - it really is a horror story if we double that, isn't it? Why would you think it wasn't? Why do you think, by implication with 'deniers' no doubt, that I attribute that to a person/study, and not to a consequence?

I think you mistake me with someone else.

 

Yes, but any empiracal work done on this site is far from demonstrating it to be too high. If you weren't dismissing it by using your own work and calling it horror stuff, then apologies for that. The rest of your questions, I'm not quite getting the gist of?

 

 

The 60 yr cycle appeared to be a red-herring, actually, it didn't match proxy records It might well work where the frequency modulates itself over very long time periods (rather like a spring), but I haven't the time to investigate this. Yes, only hindsight will show whether this is the case; and indeed, as you pointed out, the problem is that even if the 60 yr cycle did work, we still wouldn't get into a period where we would be posting negative anomalies because of the underlying trend.

 

Well, given that climate is a dynamical system, the chances of chaos being a prime descriptor are quite high, actually. And, as a matter of fact, this is borne out by the science, since climate models need to use ensembles (multiple runs with very small initial starting conditions) in order to get bounded ranges (which increase through time) This is a hallmark of chaotic mathematics.

If the -ve feedbacks haven't worked, what's to say that current observations are a result of +ve feedbacks? I mean they all come out of the same (dynamical) computer model, don't they ... a model that has been tested against historical observations. You can't seriously be suggesting that some parts of the model work, some parts don't, and we can cherry pick which, even though the tests were done with the complete model?

 

I'm talking about attribution of past climate, not future projection. We can observe the +ve feedbacks, such as the drop in summer snow cover, sea ice, glacial ice, increased SSTs, increased humidity, etc. There is a lot more going on than just computer models. The fact that they largely support observations is a bonus though.

The exact nature of the different climate models used is something I'd have to read up on more before offering much of an opinion on them

[VillagePlank]

Many of the self proclaimed sceptics/deniers. Much of the public, at least in the US.

 McCright et al., 2013

 

 

Oh, OK, I don't read that drivel, nor their blogs; in any case, please don't confuse (naive) general inquiry with big-bad-oil-planet-rapers.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Oh, OK, I don't read that drivel, nor their blogs; in any case, please don't confuse (naive) general inquiry with big-bad-oil-planet-rapers.

 

I wasn't putting you in the denier category (nevermind the big-bad-oil-raper thing!), just, more or less, answering your original question

 

"Incidentally, why bother conducting a study (posted elsewhere) that investigates the quantity of papers supporting CO2 AGW if it not to be used a priori in the context of deductive reasoning?"

[knocker]

Climate myths: Higher CO₂ levels will boost plant growth and food production

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html