Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? Part 2.0 29

[zdas04]

Yep, that's exactly what they're saying. The hindcast concept only exists in climate science. They input all the parameters (including that there was a huricane) and the model tells them that there should have been a huricane.

It gets even flakier when they put in the whole storm track and tell the model to track the storm--that exercise has maybe a 30% success rate with model following the track.

Weather models can't reliably predict what is going to happen in the next 6 hours (I live in the Rockies and the effects of the mountains and valleys are just too complex for the models they use). A weather model looks at an area about 1/4 the size of the continental U.S. and can't predict this afternoon. I'll leave you to estimate the "accuracy" of the models that try to predict global performance for the next 50 years.

David

 

[dawei87]

At least the article corrected their initial lie of saying predictions were going to stop altogether. Of course, don't let that stop the sensationalist blogs from continuing to push it.

All they are doing is dropping one very early seasonal prediction.

A weather model looks at an area about 1/4 the size of the continental U.S. and can't predict this afternoon.

Predicting climate is not the same as predicting weather.

The chaos that is weather balances out over the global scale. It is the result of uneven distributions of heat throughout the planet and how those distributions *within the system*. Climate change is based on how the overall heat flux changes, the balance of the inward vs. outward transfer of energy through the boundary of the system. That's why we are talking about global changes of fractions of a degree per decade, not tens of degrees per day like we see in local weather: because short term local variance averages out.

 

[ImminentCollapse]

Long-term global temperatures also average out.

Problem solved. You're welcome world.

IC

 

[Jafka]

I've worked from the environmentalist standpoint and picking apart the idealist and alarmist language in climate change activists is some low hanging fruit.

That said, there absolutely nothing more morally reprehensible than denying a hypothesis with even the slightest bit of evidence that millions could be adversely affected. Especially when you're not directly involved in climate science.

I know a lot of ostensibly smart engineers who are climate skeptics. And, while skepticism is a healthy approach to most everything, many you also need to realize that you're talking outside your field of expertise and that the consequences of climate change could be potentially enormous and irreversible.

Engineering is a field of action: things get designed, built and used. And things don't get built without energy. Engineering exists solely on the basis of available energy sources. I think there's a strong cognitive dissonance with engineers regarding the negative effects of our primary energy source- fossil fuels, from which all modern human progress (good and bad) springs.

I suggest you read the scientific JOURNALS (not the hyped news articles and editorials) yourself. Read the ones on the efficacy of determining global CO2 levels, on using isotopic analysis to determine that the additional CO2 is from fossil fuel combustion, removal of solar forcing noise from the temperature measurements, etc. Then you can perhaps have an informed opinion.

 

[ewh]

I don't think that it is so much an issue of engineers denying climate change vs those claiming climate change exists... I think the issue is that most recognize that climate does indeed change, and many will acknowledge tha AGW may indeed be an issue. What I find to be so controversial is the dedication of enormous resources from across the globe to try to mitigate climate change, which may well have little or no effect on that change. It can convincingly be argued that the efforts and resources spent would be better used in preparing. If the extreme actions being proposed come to pass, and they turn out to be a relative drop in the ocean, no resources (or time) would be available for much of mankind to acclimate to the changes.
Man will truly be a victim of his own arrogance.



"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[dawei87]

I don't think that it is so much an issue of engineers denying climate change vs those claiming climate change exists... It can convincingly be argued that the efforts and resources spent would be better used in preparing.

Except that when millions of voting citizens vehemently deny that the problem exists in the first place, it DOES make it an issue. It completely stifles the discussion that I agree should be taking place, which is what the best use of resources truly is. Hard to have that discussion with a conspiracy theorist who won't concede anything other than that it's all a big fat lie.

Part of the problem may be that many of the skeptics and "skeptics" out there tend to believe that those who are convinced that the science is sound are also convinced that the policies are sound. The disconnect seems to be in feeling it is necessary to question the science, when in reality what they have most issue with is something completely separate, be it media portrayals, green marketing, domestic and global policies, etc.

BTW, good post Jafka

 

[TGS4]

Re averages, etc.

As engineers, I think that we have some notable insight into the thermodynamics of complex systems (an insight that seems to be lost on some of these "scientists"). For example, this idea of a global average temperature. What a load of cr@p. The relevant measure is enthalpy, which for air is calculated using the temperature and the relative humidity. Is this EVER discussed? NO!

Which air has more enthalpy: 110°F (43.3°C) in Phoenix, AZ at an RH of 15%, or 85°F (29.4°C) in Seattle with an RH of 95%? The Phoenix air has a specific enthalpy of 65.21 kJ/kg, while the Seattle air has 95.53 kJ/kg. However, from the climatologists, they will say that Phoenix is hotter than Seattle. Well, the dry bulb temperature is higher, but the energy necessary to increase the temperature is much (50%) more in Seattle. So, from an engineering perspective, if we are actually interested in the energy of a system (and these climatologists are always prattling on about energy fluxes and balances, etc) shouldn't we be measuring the energy?

And they want to generate an "average" worldwide surface temperature for a range of bloody cold (and dry) in the polar regions to hot and sticky-set in the tropics. Come on - give me a break. This type of stuff is what is observed in the JOURNALS of the climatologist "scientists" all the time, but it doesn't even get one out of 2nd year thermodynamics for an engineer (or 4th year HVAC for mechanical engineers).

And Jafka - really - you want to revisit the concept of risk? I run circles around people on a daily basis about risk, risk management, and risk mitigation. Why would the use of the precautionary principle lose me my job when I do risk management for a real job, yet is flogged as the best thing since sliced bread when it's other peoples' (tax-payers) money? Give your head a shake.

 

[zdas04]

daweia87,

If "millions of people" say the earth is flat, does that make it so? If a majority of the population believes that taxing the rich will do anything for the deficit beyond reducing the capital available to industry, does that make it so?

Jafka,
I'm in Durham, NC today and just finished a long meeting with EPA management about an air-quality rule. I don't think you can call me uninformed on climate science since my clients are paying my exorbitant hourly rate for me to talk about it. Your statement:

That said, there absolutely nothing more morally reprehensible than denying a hypothesis with even the slightest bit of evidence that millions could be adversely affected. Especially when you're not directly involved in climate science.

truly rubs me the wrong way. First, I can think of many things much more reprehensible than denying an hypothesis. Second, here's an hypotheses--The earth is flat. I can find many thousands, probably millions of people who absolutely believe that hypothesis, not as a joke but as a deeply held belief. My working definition of "belief" is "acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data".

Every single person who believes in AGW is exhibiting an acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data (computer models do not, can not, and will not ever prove ANYTHING, and there is no untainted data). AGW is a religion, not science. The religion of AGW is very much like the religion of the Spanish Inquisition--any non-believer is automatically a heretic and should be, must be scourged.

So please keep your condescending attitude to yourself.

David

 

[dawei87]

As engineers, I think that we have some notable insight into the thermodynamics of complex systems (an insight that seems to be lost on some of these "scientists"). For example, this idea of a global average temperature. What a load of cr@p. The relevant measure is enthalpy, which for air is calculated using the temperature and the relative humidity. Is this EVER discussed? NO!
…shouldn't we be measuring the energy?

Energy is discussed all the time, it just happens to usually be in the form of ocean heat content, which is by far where most of the energy from the radiative imbalance has been stored.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg

And humidity is certainly important. This was realized even in the day of Arrhenius. But if tropospheric specific humidity increases with warming temperatures (which it does) then tropospheric enthalpy is certainly increasing as well, is it not?

You can politely fold your "conspiracy theory" claptrap until it is all corners and insert it in the most uncomfortable orifice you can locate.

The belief that thousands of scientists are colluding to perpetrate a scientific hoax on an unprecedented scale solely out of motivation for personal gain, or under some type of coercion, is a conspiracy theory in every sense of the word.

I'm not implying that everyone who has doubts about some aspect or the other of climate science is a conspiracy theorist. I'm saying the conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists. A spade is a spade and I'm not going to sugar coat it just because you don't like the term.

If "millions of people" say the earth is flat, does that make it so?

Um, no? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I already made it clear that I think the opinion shared by these millions is indeed wrong.

AGW is a religion, not science.

Ah, right. Because the only explanation that makes sense in your mind for someone disagreeing with your almighty opinion on a scientific question is that they are some kind of religious sheep who "hates the human race".

It couldn't possibly be that they looked at the question same as you did and simply reached a different conclusion.

please keep your condescending attitude to yourself.

...and either cut out the "anti human" and "religious" garbage or quit whining when you get labeled a conspiracy theorist for believing in a conspiracy theory.

 

[TGS4]

And humidity is certainly important. This was realized even in the day of Arrhenius. But if tropospheric specific humidity increases with warming temperatures (which it does) then tropospheric enthalpy is certainly increasing as well, is it not?

Of course it was realized by Arrhenius - he actually used some scientific principles. Please explain how a "global average temperature", without reference to humidity (in fact, without reference to enthalpy at all) is useful, or even meaningful in the context of thermodynamics.

Are you actually getting your information from SkS? Could you at least try a less biased (and more trustworthy) source? How about

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/,

which is decidedly much less of a hockey-stick. Heck, it's leveled off for the last 9 years (eye-balling it).

 

[dawei87]

Please explain how a "global average temperature", without reference to humidity (in fact, without reference to enthalpy at all) is useful, or even meaningful in the context of thermodynamics.

Global average temperature is useful when the metric being talked about is global average temperature. To talk about it alone is not necessarily to imply that nothing else could be of interest.

Are you actually getting your information from SkS? Could you at least try a less biased (and more trustworthy) source? How about

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/,

which is decidedly much less of a hockey-stick. Heck, it's leveled off for the last 9 years (eye-balling it).

I don't 'get my information from SkS' but I do enjoy their synthesized graphics based on scientific papers.

But anyway the purpose of the graphic was not to illustrate recent rises, but rather to contrast the difference between oceanic vs. atmospheric warming, so your link is in no way inconsistent with my original point. And even though you don't agree with the general theme of SkS, it doesn't mean that everything they put out is wrong. If they are right, then nothing else matters.

And it's hardly even a contentious point anyway...if anything, it's the skeptics who love to point out the high heat capacity of oceanic waters more than anyone, as it supports the argument that AGW is not a serious problem since the oceans act as a buffer for extreme temperature swings.

 

[TGS4]

Global average temperature is useful when the metric being talked about is global average temperature

What does global average temperature mean in a thermodynamic context?

 

[jmw]

Here's the one I like:

I know a lot of ostensibly smart engineers who are climate skeptics.

I'd like to point out that I know a lot of truly smart engineers who are climate sceptics. In fact I know a lot of truly smart people who are climate sceptics.
Maybe I should go one further ans suggest that far from their being a concensus, there are a lot of truly smart climate scientists who are sceptics.

I might also add that I know a lot of people who are complete idiots who believe in AGW.

And, to be scrupulously fair, there are also some people who believe in AGW and that it makes a difference, who are also pretty smart and we even have some pretty smart engineers on that side of the fence. They are here in these various threads.


Now, frankly, we already went through this uncertainty principle business before, and it isn't worth going through again. You either accept it or you don't, but I will add something else that takes us outside of the engineer's world of logic and an example that isn't climate science:

If 90% of the population of a country do not want to remain part of the European Union.... what right has their government to insist they remain a part of the European union and pay heavily for the privilege? I use this as an example.

The point is that in a free society, the people have the right to have their majority wishes respected.
They have, in a democracy, one other fundamental right: the right to be wrong.

No one has the right to force them them to do something they don't want to do.
No one has the right to make decisions on their behalf because "they know better".
Now sure, in the past and in some cultures (e.g. totalitarian states, tribal cultures or absolute monarchies) what one person says is law or you lose your head, but these days many of us live in supposedly free societies.
Evolution will tell if this is good or bad. And heck, what does anyone care if the human race is wiped out? They'll still be animals and an extremely resilient nature.

The thing is much of the argument is going to be decided not based on the logic and the science but on emotion. Emotion derives from the primitive brain stem - the fight or flight instincts- and these can be played upon and are being played upon by the climate scientists.
They are desperate to find the right words sufficiently emotionally loaded to bring about a policy they want.
Policy is not the business of scientists.
The moment they get involved in policy their scientific objectiveness goes out of the window and they are not to be trusted. And the moment they start loading there "science" with emotionally loaded terminology is the moment they have corrupted their own science and they no longer should be treated with respect.

It is has been shown that emotions play the biggest part in how most people (excluding engineers) make their decisions.
The duty of scientists is to present facts, so far as they can and to formulate theories and make predictions based on those theories that can be tested.

But above all, the duty of the scientist in such arenas as this is to inform.
Inform, not influence.
Who do they inform? the policy makers who require an absolutely balanced and impartial presentation of the facts so that they can make a rational and reasoned judgement.
Once any "scientist" departs from emotionally neutral language and starts promoting policies they have decided upon they no longer can be called scientists or trusted to be objective.







JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

While we're on the topic of credibility, there have been those who say that the emails don't imply corrupt behaviour and that such corruption charges are the invention of conspiracy theorists.
So the eco-warriors are all squeaky clean?
Here is a lawsuit being brought by under the RICO act (Racketeering).
It appears Chevron are alleging that the managing environmental scientist at Straus Consulting has been colluding to falsify her own reports in order to "extort" money from Chervon.
They managed to obtain video evidence of a conversation in which this becomes apparent.
Money talks and there is far more money in AGW and related eco- actions than there is in big oil.
The point is that just because they (the climate scientists) are scientists doesn't mean they are honest nor that their dat is honest or honestly handled.
In the case of some it is apparent that some of them have no computer skills whatsoever and some (e.g. Phil Jones) can't even use Excel. And yet, when these people homogenise (adjust) the data and when that homogenised data shows warming where the raw data does not we cannot help but be concerned, certainly concerned enough to suspect the science, especially where it is so obviously not impartial by policy driven, and to also suspect the possibility that it isn't just inept but corrupt.


JMW
[URL unfurl="true"]www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Here is Chevron's legal complaint.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

Interesting journal article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.

Expert credibility in climate change

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC... Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

 

[moltenmetal]

josephv: Thanks for that. It's not like science is done by polling, but the poll raises an important point. Everyone may be entitled to an opinion, but not everyone is entitled to have their opinion considered both informed and credible on a particular topic. It is also rather obvious that scientific consensus does not mean unanimity, nor should reasonable people conclude that a dissenting opinion or three out of a hundred renders the consensus automatically suspect.

There is no doubt in my mind that the people who actually study this subject for a living, and hence have at least a reasonable claim to being properly informed in the matter, actually think that AGW is a credible threat. To me it is FAR more credible to think that this consensus represents humankind's best scientific opinion on the subject, than it is to consider that this 97% of properly informed people are all so systematically biased by virtue of how they are compensated that they are in cahoots and are knowingly selling us a bill of good. Hence, I tend to agree with the majority opinion.

Does that make me religious? Or a sheep?

 

[zdas04]

moltenmetal,
Your beliefs are your beliefs. You've looked at information that you found compelling and reached a position. It really doesn't matter that someone else can look at the same data and reach a different conclusion.

I can look a "proof" based on computer models and call "foul, computer models cannot prove anything". Others look at the same "proof" and say "that is the best we can do so we have to use it".

You look at sea level data and see a cause and effect of man's activities, I see that every single projection of sea level change in the last 20 years has been incorrect--the most optimistic projection in 1990 was that most of the inhabited islands in the South Pacific would be uninhabitable by 2010, others had the crises occurring sooner. Real estate in Fiji is still on the market as we approach 2012 and is still pretty expensive.

You look at average global climate temperature graphs and see 0.5-2C change as significant, I look at it and see the uncertainty of the instruments is about +/- 2C (calibrated range is typically 0-100C, and most of the instruments have an uncertainty +/-2% of calibrated range), and any number within the dead band has to be assumed to be the same number. I see data that has been "corrected" for "known effects" like the "heat island effect" that no one seems to be able to agree on its proper magnitude.

Many of the things you see as evidence of AGW, I see as evidence of an inherently unstable biosphere with built in macro negative feedback loops.

The beautiful thing about beliefs is that you really don't have to justify them to anyone.

David

 

[jmw]

There may also be a bias in the poll because research funding is being given almost exclusively to those whose research supports the AGW position.

The evidence from the emails is that there has been a cabal at work actively trying to supress publication of contrary papers.

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers

on what basis did they compile this list and are there only 1372 climate researchers?
How do they define a climate researcher?
what related disciplines with complimentary skills were included or excluded?
What was the point of such a paper/research except to show a specific result.
How many articles/papers published were trivial?
Is their no weighting according to the status and qualification if the researchers or no weighting as to the quality of the papers?
I would hazard that a minor change or too to a definition might make all the difference.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

"Your beliefs are your beliefs. You've looked at information that you found compelling and reached a position. It really doesn't matter that someone else can look at the same data and reach a different conclusion."

David, you're a very smart guy and I respect your right to look at the data and draw your own conclusions- but you've completely missed my point.

I personally do not consider myself qualified to draw conclusions based on the data. I don't practice in that field or anything remotely close to it. Instead, I defer to the majority of the people who actually DO have expertise in that field.

When presented with
a) the idea that the scientific process, though not perfect (i.e. like all other human institutions), tends to actually work in advancing, over time, our evolving best understanding of this and other scientific topics, or

b) that the community of people qualified to make a judgment on this issue are all in cahoots, promulgating a myth for their own personal gain,

I pick a). Call that an irrational deference to authority if you will, but I don't think so.

THAT is fundamentally where we differ.