The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science 77

[rconnor]

----------Introduction---------
A comparison of recent temperature trends in isolation of earlier data, say 1998-present, to long(er)-term temperature trends, say 1970-present, reveals that more recent temperature trends are lower than long-term temperature trends. This has led many, including many prominent climate scientists, to refer to the recent period as a “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown”. While in isolation of any other context besides two temperature trends, the term “pause” or “hiatus” may be quasi-accurate, much more context is required to determine whether these terms are statistically and, more importantly, physically accurate.

It should be noted that most times when these terms are used by climate scientists, they keep the quotation marks to indicate the mention-form of the word and are not implying an actual physical pause or hiatus in climate change. The subsequent research into the physical mechanism behind the “pause” has continually demonstrated that it is not indicative of a pause in climate change nor does it suggest a drastic reduction in our estimates of climate sensitivity. However, this fact appears to be lost on many who see the “pause” as some kind of death-blow to the anthropogenic climate change theory or to the relevancy of climate change models.

While this subject has been discussed repeatedly in these forums, it has never been the focus but rather used as a jet-pack style argument to change the conversation from the subject at hand to the “pause” (“Well that can’t be right because the Earth hasn’t warmed in X years!”). Revisiting past threads, I cannot find an example of where someone attempted to defend the “pause” as a valid argument against anthropogenic climate change. It is brought up, debunked and then not defended (and then gets brought up again 5 posts later). The hope is to discuss the scientific literature surrounding the “pause” to help readers understand why the “pause” is simply not a valid argument. While some points have been discussed (usually by me) before, this post does contain new research as well as 2014 and 2015 temperature data, which shed even more light on the topic. The post will be split into three parts: 1) the introduction (and a brief discussion on satellite versus surface station temperature data sets), 2) Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2? and 3) Does the “pause” suggest that climate models are deeply flawed?

------Why I Will Be Using Ground-Based Temperature Data Sets-------
Prior to going into the meat of the discussion, I feel it necessary to discuss why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and not satellite data sets. Perhaps one of the most hypocritical and confused (or purposefully misleading) arguments on many “skeptic” blogs is the disdain for all ground-based temperature data sets and the promotion of satellite temperature data sets. The main contention with ground-based temperature data sets is that they do not include raw data and require homogenization techniques to produce their end result. While I am not here (in this thread) to discuss the validity of such techniques, it is crucial to understand that satellite temperature data sets go through a much more involved and complex set of calculations, adjustments and homogenizations to get from their raw data to their end product. Both what they measure and where they measure it are very important and highlights the deep confusion (or purposeful misdirection) of “skeptic” arguments that ground-based temperatures are rubbish and satellite-based temperatures are “better”.

[ul][li]Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.[/li]
[li]Satellite record is constructed from a series of satellites, meaning the data is not fully homogeneous (Christy et al, 1998). Various homogenization techniques are required to create the record. (RSS information)[/li]
[li]Satellites have to infer the temperature at various altitudes by attempting to mathematically remove the influence of other layers and other interference (RSS information). This is a very difficult thing to do and the methods have gone through multiple challenges and revisions. (Mears and Wentz 2005, Mears et al 2011, Fu et al 2004)[/li]
[li]Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. The closest to “surface” temperatures they get are TLT which is an loose combination of the atmosphere centered roughly around 5 km. It is also not even a direct measurement channel (which themselves are not measuring temperature directly) but a mathematically adjustment of other channels. Furthermore, due to the amount of adjustments involved, TLT has constantly required revisions to correct errors and biases (Christy et al 1998, Fu et al 2005).[/li]
[li]See the discussion on Satellite data sets in IPCC Report (section 3.4.1.2)[/li]
[li]Satellite data and the large amount of homogenization and adjustments required to turn the raw data into useful temperature data are still being question to this day. Unlike ground-based adjustments which lead to trivial changes in trends (from the infamous Karl et al 2015), recent research shows that corrections of perhaps 30% are required for satellite data (Weng et al 2013 .[/li][/ul]

None of this is meant to say the satellite temperature data is “wrong” but it very clearly highlights the deep-set confusion in the “skeptic” camp about temperature data sets. If one finds themselves dismissing ground-based temperature data sets because they require homogenization or adjustments while claiming satellite temperature data sets are superior have simply been lead astray by “skeptics” or are trying to lead others astray. Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates that any attempt to compare satellite data (which measures the troposphere) to the surface temperature output of models is completely misguided (*cough*John Christy *cough*). It is for these reasons that I will use ground-based data in the rest of the post.

Again, I would like to state that I do not wish this to be a focal point of this discussion. I am merely outline why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and my justification for that as, undoubtedly, someone would claim I should be using satellite temperature datasets. In fact, I appear to be in pretty good company; Carl Mears, one of the chief researchers of RSS (and the same Mears from all the papers above), stated:

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset

If this is a topic of interest to people, perhaps starting your own thread would be advisable as I will not be responding to comments on temperature data sets on this thread. Now, onto the actual discussion…

 

[rconnor]

davefitz, firstly, thanks for taking the time to clarify your points. I appreciate you not just making a drive-by comment.

If there is no detectable variation in experienced climate ( as remembered over one's own personal history) and there is no detectable rise in ocean level ( contrary to the proclaimed model) then one has the right to view the persons jockeying for political favors (or additional powers) with suspicion, and one should at least ask for clarification .

I’m sorry, this is nonsense and IRstuff touches on why. Your lack of knowledge on the science behind climate change or your (frankly unsupported, see more below) suspicion of ill-intent does not make it rationally justifiable for you to argue against mitigation measures. As I said to rb1957, I have no issues with uninformed opinions on climate science. It’s a complicated topic that I don’t expect everyone to get. I do have issues with the combination of uninformed opinions and strident resistance against mitigation measures.

You certainly can (and should) ask for clarification – go read NASA’s climate change webpage. If, instead, you choose to go to some internet blog or some other dubious source, then you are not honestly looking for clarification, you’re looking for something to support your (ideologically) pre-determined conclusion. This is such an important (and obvious) point but it always fails to sink in.

Furthermore, you imply that you are honestly looking for clarification and then say “For example, refusal to supply documented clarification on data fudging does nothing to allay such suspicion” a few posts below my comment at 25 Nov 15 22:51 (and the link from 20 Nov 15 23:30). If you missed that post, I’d highly encourage you read it. Simply put, if you feel that Lamar Smith is honestly asking for clarification (for the good of the people), then either you are not actively seeking a better understanding of climate science (i.e. you aren’t really “doing your homework” to support your position) or you are not honestly seeking a better understanding of climate science (i.e. you are getting the “answers” to your homework from dubious sources). There was never any scientific merit to Smith’s investigation, it’s an attempted smear campaign (and another good example of projectionism – “I’m politically motivated to find fault with these papers, therefore they must be politically motivated to produce these papers).

In my opinion , focusing on the worst case scenarios one can imagine does not by itself prove that the current models are correct.

The scientific community is not focusing on the worst case scenario. Again, perhaps you should revisit some of my earlier conversations with beej67 on the sensitivity probability distribution function (see 30 Sep 15 23:07, 20 Oct 15 19:30, or 29 Oct 15 21:19). The current range of climate sensitivity (ECS, not TCR) is between 1.5 K/doubling and 4.5 K/doubling. This is indeed a wide range but you need to understand the ramifications and likelihood of both extremes. Firstly, the probability distribution function is right-skewed meaning that there is higher probability over being greater than we expect than being lower than we expect (especially if you factor in paleoclimate sensitivity – a sensitivity of lower than 1.5 deg C makes past changes in climate unexplainable). Secondly, the difference between the low end of the sensitivity range and the high end is the difference between how quickly we need to reduce emissions to near zero, not if mitigation is required or not. Taking the TCR value from Lewis and Curry 2014 of 1.3 K (which is championed by mitigation skeptics as being a knock-down argument against mitigation, and which I’ve discussed here.) versus the IPCC value of 1.8 K means that temperatures we’d expect to see in 2050 (using the IPCC value) are instead reached in 2060 (using the LC14 value) (source from Myles Allen). So low sensitivity might buy us a little more time but it doesn’t change the need for mitigation.

But I'm sure that if someone was focusing on the best case scenario while ignoring the middle and worst case scenario (like, for example, taking the lowest possible sensitivity value and using that as justification for the "do nothing" option), you'd tell them it was a silly way of doing risk assessment, correct?

I have a slight suspicion that some of the blogs supporting the ACC agenda are actually computer generated responses to those posts that are not rabidly and blindly supportive of that agenda, but that is just me.

ERROR>>>ERROR>>>INITIATE SELF-DESTRCUT PROTOCOL

 

[jhardy1]

davefitz said:

If there is no detectable variation in experienced climate ( as remembered over one's own personal history)...
But there IS detectable variation in climate. (Don't confuse "climate" with "weather", and don't think for a moment that one person's lifetime recollections of their local "weather" are a substitute for global climate data. And in any case - if you want to pin your analysis on local anecdotal data, it seems every second evening news report is headlined with scare stories about "the worst floods in living memory", "the hottest heat-wave since 1937", and so on!) The data is there - temperature rise, changes in regional annual rainfall patterns, etc.

... and there is no detectable rise in ocean level ( contrary to the proclaimed model)
And again, there IS already a detectable and measurable rise in ocean levels, and the rate of rise is higher today than it was in the past. 200 mm observed rise in the last 150 years or so (with a current rise of around 3 mm per year) may not sound like much (especially if you don't live near the sea), but try telling that to some of the world's most disadvantaged people who live on low-lying coastal fringes just a metre or two above the current (rising!) sea level.

I'm not sure what you are getting at - the data is there: temperatures ARE rising, the sea level IS rising, rainfall patterns ARE changing; this is not just climate theory or local anecdotal evidence, it is backed up by scientific observations and recordings.

We can have a debate about the causes of the observed changes, the significance of apparent discrepancies or anomalies between different data sets, the observed differences between regional climate variability, or the reliability of the various models, but please - let's not start the debate by throwing out all of the data!

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[rconnor]

Beej67,

While I appreciate the attempt to take into account some of my points, may I ask where the 2550 MtCO2 number comes from (is it the EPA estimate, I couldn’t find it anywhere)? On second thought, it doesn’t really matter because, even if it is an accurate estimate, it doesn’t save the analysis from the other issues (assuming $/ppm decreased is a constant value and, based off one data point, can be extrapolated to represent the entire difference between RCP8.4 and RCP4.5 in 2100). Furthermore, and more importantly, it continues to ignore any benefits. Continually ignoring the benefits while trying to calculate an ROI is a bit like playing chess where white pieces can take black pieces but black pieces cannot take white pieces and you always get to play as white (i.e. an example of “pigeon rules” chess).

It will not. Will not. Will not get us there.

Again, you need to understand that I don’t believe that we will stay below the 2 deg C point because I agree with you that some policies required to stay below 2 deg C are impractical (but keeping it as a lofty goal might be necessary as continuing to raise the temperature goal (1) causes much more damage and (2) will likely enable more procrastination). However, that doesn’t mean that I completely dismiss the Stern Review – it remains a very robust analysis of the cost/benefit of climate change mitigation versus pure adaptation. While I (and you) might have issues with some of the exact policies contained in these type of reports and these exact policies differ between reports, the main conclusion remains the same – climate change mitigation is greatly cost effective over adaptation. Slightly changing policies or doing some things rather than others does not change this fact.

re: Ocean Acidification – I said I would apologize if you had commented on ocean acidification in the past and I forgot. I have indeed forgotten and I apologize.

Unfortunately, I don’ think your previous comments on ocean acidification do you any favours. You seemed to suggest that ocean acidification is ignored by the scientific establishment. I highlighted to you that “acidification” appears 5 times in AR5 WGI SPM and 9 times in WGII SPM and they dedicated an entire workshop report to ocean acidification. The scientific community is well aware that reducing CO2 emissions also reduces the risk of ocean acidification. This is contrary to the point you seem to be making.

Every inch of the biosphere is stressed by humans right now. We leave no stone unmolested today.

(source? I guess you didn’t bother doing any further research into this matter or read AR5 WGII SPM.)

It will not. Will not. Will not get us there.

Because you'd have us live on a cooler dead planet instead of a living warmer one.

(source? Again, I guess you didn’t bother doing any further research into this matter or read AR5 WGII SPM)

After reading into it further since you brought it up, I think the complete elimination of all calcium from the ocean's ecosystem due to acidification can be almost 100% responsible for the Permian Event. And the associated warming is a relative sideshow.

(I guess you didn’t bother reading the Joachimski et al 2012 quote)
All of these perfectly fit into my statement:

You seem to think if you spout these uniformed opinions with enough conviction that it nullifies all the science that says they're wrong. Whereas I feel that science that says an uninformed opinion is wrong nullifies the opinion as having any merit in this discussion.

You keep digging further and further in while failing to provide any evidence to support your statements. We’ve been here before (atomic bombs, photosynthesis, magical concrete and “The IPCC thinks if you paved every forest on earth you'd cool the earth down”) and it really doesn’t work out well for you. My suggestion would be drop it (as you have done with those other examples). But rather than move onto the next unsupported opinion (as you have done with those other examples), acknowledge that you might need to spend a bit more time researching the topic. You will be much better off for it.

 

[rconnor]

Since when has anecdotal experience, i.e., "going outside" prove or disprove science? That's the equivalent of saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer because you, or your relative, smoked like a smokestack for 30 yrs and suffered no ill effects. The whole point of proper science is to distance the analysis from personal experience or bias.

IRstuff, it’s actually worse than that. As we are starting to see ill effects (as jhardy1 highlighted), it’s equivalent to smoking like a smokestack for 30 years and are showing early signs of lung cancer but conclude smoking doesn’t cause cancer on the grounds you haven’t died yet.

In addition, you don’t believe the diagnosis is accurate in the first place because you feel that your doctor has manipulated the test results because they are in cahoots with the government’s extreme anti-smoking agenda. So you demand that your doctor releases every email and document from the past 6 years. All while 5 other independent studies, from different doctors, from different hospitals, using different examination techniques all conclude the same thing.

You did managed to find one unlicensed doctor from the Phillip Morris Institute of Homeopathy that said you were in good health and smoking certainly was not going to be harmful (in fact, the tars entering your lungs provide essential nutrients!). You conclude that only if you are terminally ill will you feel it necessary to stop smoking and allow the doctors to start to treat you. You truly are the Galileo of your generation.

 

[rb1957]

since we're talking analogies, my take of "man-made CO2 is the only thing causing climate change" is like saying "the only thing you'll ever die of is lung cancer"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rb1957]

and another one ...

at the doctor's ... "oh dear, your weight has increased since our last appointment last year. I've run several models that predict that if this increase continues then in the future you'll have massive health problems and die an early death. I assure you these predictions are valid, they've been vetted by several other doctors (only some of which are my friends) and published in many learned journals. the medical science is settled. to avoid this outcome you must start immediately a severe diet and a strenuous fitness regime, I recommend the personal trainer I use (not that there's any conflict of interest, he's just very good ... written up in many professional journals)."

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

my take of "man-made CO2 is the only thing causing climate change" is like saying "the only thing you'll ever die of is lung cancer"

I don't think that's a proper analogy. To translate that into climate change it would seem to say "the only thing that can cause negative impacts is global warming". (note: the analogy uses smoking = CO2 increases, lung cancer = global warming and death = negative consequences) This is, of course, untrue. There are plenty of other things that could cause negative impacts, a massive asteroid for one or a nearby supernova stripping our atmosphere.

It would be more accurate to say "smoking is the only thing that could have caused your lung cancer". This would translate to "CO2 emissions are the only thing that could have caused recent global warming". This I would agree with. It is the only theory that has explanatory power, both in a paleoclimatic sense and modern sense.

Regarding your second analogy, I'd almost agree that it is accurate minus the unsupported conspiracy of some financially motivated agenda. Please describe how this global conspiracy of climate scientists works and how they aim to profit off it? Remember that you're insinuating that his conspiracy involves nearly the entire field of Earth sciences and paleoclimatology, virtually every major, credible scientific institution and virtually every major, credible scientific journal. As I said:

Also, please explain how the average climate scientist gains “huge financial and social benefit”. The average climate scientist earns $70,770/year. A tenured professor at Penn State department of geosciences (home of the nefarious con-man, Michael Mann) earns, on average, $120,000/year. Apparently, not only are climate scientists really bad at science, they are also really bad at milking their financially motivated agenda!

So, rb1957, which do you feel is more likely a better description of reality:

Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

Or, perhaps, the ideological rejection of mitigation measures by layman isn't as scientifically or logically justifiable as they wish it was.

 

[IRstuff]

"at the doctor's ... "oh dear, your weight has increased since our last appointment last year. I've run several models that predict that if this increase continues then in the future you'll have massive health problems and die an early death. I assure you these predictions are valid, they've been vetted by several other doctors (only some of which are my friends) and published in many learned journals. the medical science is settled. to avoid this outcome you must start immediately a severe diet and a strenuous fitness regime, ""


Given that 2/3rd of Americans are, in fact, obese, your analogy falls flat. Are you saying that obesity doesn't cause health problems? That'll certainly be news to the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, or are you also arguing that there's a conspiracy there as well?


TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[zdas04]

No, he's saying that the model has no chance of accurately predicting the outcome for any individual. We all know old fat people. We all know of skinny people who died young. I'm old. I'm fat. I don't have diabetes or heart problems. No computer model is going to successfully predict when I'm going to die or of what.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[cranky108]

I don't know about computer models, as my computer seems to have more problems than either me or the predicted climate.

I understand what is intended to be said by the doctor analogy, but I don't believe it is a realistic comparison. However, doctors do make more money the sicker we are. So maybe it is fair to say that people who study this stuff do gain by finding something, because they perserve there over bloated jobs. And truthfully, if there was nothing to be found, there would not be so much money being spent on it.

So maybe this is all just a jobs program for people who can't actually do anything else.

Having said that, I'm still waiting for those economic numbers, that show spending the first dime is worth it.

 

[rconnor]

I'm old. I'm fat. I don't have diabetes or heart problems. No computer model is going to successfully predict when I'm going to die or of what.

I agree that no computer model is going to successfully predict when you're going to die or of what. But that's not analogous to the climate change discussion. Climate models are not about giving us an exact dollar amount of damages at an exact year. Climate models are about giving us a probabilistic range of possible outcomes given a specific emission path. They're projections, not predictions.

Returning to the analogy, this is like your doctor saying, "Your current health problems are very likely linked to your poor eating habits and lack of exercise. We've ran simulations and they show that if you continue your poor eating habits and lack of exercise, your chance of heart attack increases by X% to Y% by 2030". Now of course you can give anecdotal examples of old fat people or dead healthy people but are you seriously willing to conclude from this that doctors are wrong in saying that "poor diet and exercise is bad for your health and could lead to future health problems"? Are you also seriously willing to conclude that you would be justified in ignoring your doctor’s recommendation to eat healthier and exercise more?

but I don't believe it is a realistic comparison. However, doctors do make more money the sicker we are.

Please describe how this global conspiracy of climate scientists works and how they aim to profit off it? Remember that you're insinuating that this conspiracy involves nearly the entire field of Earth sciences and paleoclimatology, virtually every major, credible scientific institution and virtually every major, credible scientific journal. As I said: Also, please explain how the average climate scientist gains “huge financial and social benefit”. The average climate scientist earns $70,770/year. A tenured professor at Penn State department of geosciences (home of the nefarious con-man, Michael Mann) earns, on average, $120,000/year. Apparently, not only are climate scientists really bad at science, they are also really bad at milking their financially motivated agenda!

Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

 

[IRstuff]

By your analogy, we should all allow ourselves to get fat, since the model can't predict that we'll die young. That's bad science and math.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rconnor]

...and logic.

 

[rb1957]

actually what I was talking about was (mostly) ascribing a change to one factor

we are told that the only thing causing climate change is our CO2. That reasonably like, IMHO, saying you'll die early if you're over-weight.

we have models predicting the future based on our past experience and some reasonable expectations of future trends. That is reasonably like, IMHO, measuring weight gain over a period and extrapolating that.

I think there is a reasonable linkage between the dire consequences of dying early and the impending doom of climate change. Note that a 20 year old is bound to react differently to the doctor's advice than a 60 year old.

It would be an interesting development if the doctor could force the patient to take remedial steps. I think it'll be an interesting development in the (near) future if/when insurance companies start charging over-weight people more for insurance, or declining them coverage. What the definition of over-weight ? How will it change when money is involved ?

I like my analogue, and I don't really care if you don't!

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[cranky108]

The government has fixed that problem. The insurance companies can't descriminate, and they must cover preexisting conditions.

So why don't we just outlaw global warming? Which is what is being attempted, with no discussions about the cost, and gain from it.

No Al Gore the debate is not over, is have not even started. Give back the money, you haven't got an edge on propraganda. And have you noticed how much CO2 these people put into the air, and say we are the problem.
If you want to start me to believe, they Al Gore need to start living the life he is talking about for us.

 

[IRstuff]

Still, by your argument, eating properly and exercising are bad for you, which they're not.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rconnor]

rb1957, it’s not so much that I don’t agree with your analogy. I just don’t think it serves your point unless you inaccurately stretch the analogy or misrepresent the situation surrounding climate change. Most of my comments are subtle but important differences between how you are trying to portray the situation surrounding climate change (i.e. insinuating some conspiracy amongst climate scientists) and what it actually is (or isn’t).

Furthermore, your analogy skips out on an important aspect – what rational do you have to disagree with the 97% of doctors that say your eating habits and lack of exercise will cause future health concerns? The only answer you’ve seemed to provide is some global conspiracy amongst doctors, which is…rather unconvincing to say the least.

we are told that the only thing causing climate change is our CO2. That reasonably like, IMHO, saying you'll die early if you're over-weight.

I think we need to be clear that anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the only driver causing climate change but it is the major driver (by a wide margin). In fact, the aggregate of other drivers likely works to cool the planet (this is why the attribution of CO2 can be over 100%).

One distinction comes from the fact that a million and one different things can impact when and how you die. Whereas there are actually a small number of things that can influence global climate over long periods of time - solar activity, volcanic activity, bolide impacts, orbital cycles, anthropogenic activity. You can (relatively) easily study the various drivers to determine which one has the greatest explanatory power and is most consistent with observations and physical constraints. You can then test if that explanation is consistent with paleoclimate.

When you do, it’s not just that anthropogenic CO2 has the greatest explanatory power over the current changes and is consistent with paleoclimatic changes (CO2 in general that is), it’s also that the others drivers fail miserably to describe the current changes. Solar activity has been going the wrong direction for 30+ years and is far too weak to account for the magnitude of the change (even entering a perpetual Grand Solar Minimum would not significantly influence long term temperatures, and certainly wouldn’t reverse them, if we continue to emit carbon at the rate we are). Volcanic activity has had a small and short-term impact. We haven’t had any major asteroids hit. The next orbital cycle will likely cause cooling, not warming, and isn’t expected to occur for 50,000 to 100,000 years.

So it’s not that anthropogenic CO2 is the only thing that could cause global climate change but it is the only thing that could explain the current warming and it does an extremely good job at it. Furthermore, you take that same understanding of the impacts of CO2 and apply them to paleoclimatology and you can explain past changes as well.

That is reasonably like, IMHO, measuring weight gain over a period and extrapolating that.

Simply extrapolations would be how energy balance models work. They are a little crude as they ignore the non-linearity of feedbacks and are highly sensitive to reference periods – they are more statistically models than physical ones. So, if you were referring to energy balance models (like Lewis and Curry 2014), then I’d agree. However, physically constrained GCM’s are not extrapolations, they are simulations based off the physical understanding of the subsystems and their interactions.

I think there is a reasonable linkage between the dire consequences of dying early and the impending doom of climate change. Note that a 20 year old is bound to react differently to the doctor's advice than a 60 year old.

I’m not sure I understand what your point is. When faced with evidence of “dire consequences” without remedial action, what does age have to do with the rationality behind rejecting such remedial action? Especially when the analogy breaks down because the “dire consequences” of climate change do not just impact you.

It would be an interesting development if the doctor could force the patient to take remedial steps. I think it'll be an interesting development in the (near) future if/when insurance companies start charging over-weight people more for insurance, or declining them coverage. What the definition of over-weight ? How will it change when money is involved ?

That is interesting and I think the analogy actually does apply to the conversation surrounding the reasonability of developed nations to support developing nations development through low-emission pathways or allowing them a longer grace period to transition to low-emission economy. This is not a simple question, like a person born with a genetic disposition to low metabolism or that didn't have parents that stressed the important of healthy eating, we need to be mindful that not everyone is in the same position as us (again, projectionism…).

However, the analogy of denying coverage to people with unhealthy life-styles as comparable to possible mitigation measures is inverted. Denying coverage doesn’t alleviate the “burden” of their life style on the public, in makes it worse - more emergency room visits rather than less costly preventative treatments. More accurate, providing coverage to sick people is kind of like the mitigation (don’t deny coverage = less costly preventative treatment) and denying coverage is like adaptation (deny coverage = more expensive emergency treatment). Hmm, denial of health coverage to sick people, deni... rejection of the scientific reality of climate change…

What about an attempt to reduce all junk foods in grocery stores by 30% by 2030? Or a revenue-neutral “fructose/sugar tax”, where funds are used to support the healthcare system or after school programs for children? Well, with the powerful and intricate corn (due to high-fructose corn syrup) and sugar lobby, that would likely never happen in the US (if you don’t know about these lobbies, I highly recommend reading into them; it’s fascinating but disheartening stuff). They have already been pushing misinformation about the adverse health impacts of fructose/sugar. Man, that analogy works on so many levels…

 

[rb1957]

@IRstuff ... "Still, by your argument, eating properly and exercising are bad for you, which they're not" ... ? who said that ? eating properly and exercising will help control weight gain, but that may or may not affect when you die because death by factors influenced by weight are not the only things that'll kill you (consider the impact, and predictability, of a #10 bus).

@rconnor ... "I think we need to be clear that anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the only driver causing climate change but it is the major driver (by a wide margin). In fact, the aggregate of other drivers likely works to cool the planet (this is why the attribution of CO2 can be over 100%)." ... CO2 is the thing we're told will make the difference, it's the thing we're setting out to control, and you're saying (all) other things are working in our favour (cool the planet).

"When faced with evidence of “dire consequences” without remedial action, what does age have to do with the rationality behind rejecting such remedial action?" ... who said anything about rationality ? the reaction is a human factor ... a 20 year old may well say "oh crap, let's get moving on becoming healthy" or "that won't happen for such a long time (I'm invincible) so i'll carry on just the same". a 60 year old may say "oh crap, I need to get healthy to live as long as I can" or "screw that, a couple extra years now isn't worth fighting for".

"Especially when the analogy breaks down because the “dire consequences” of climate change do not just impact you." ... it's a human thing on an individual, or a global, scale.

the notion of denying coverage, or of imposing a solution, was suggested as equivalent to actions our governments are going to take for our best interest. I hope we'd all revolt against a government that demanded we were all a "healthy" weight.


another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

"@IRstuff ... "Still, by your argument, eating properly and exercising are bad for you, which they're not" ... ? who said that ? eating properly and exercising will help control weight gain, but that may or may not affect when you die because death by factors influenced by weight are not the only things that'll kill you (consider the impact, and predictability, of a #10 bus)."

So, you're advocating doing nothing, because there are a bunch things that can kill you? That's ludicrous, given that obesity and overweight is counted as one of the leading cause of death, behind cigarette smoking. As engineers, we apply risk analysis to problems like this, and attack them by Pareto ranking, which means you don't smoke, you cut down on sugary drinks and food, and you keep your weight in control. And yes, there are other things that can cause you to die, like a meteor banging through your roof while responding to this, but we know that the statistical probability is absurdly small, so we don't bother to add 10 inches of concrete to our roofs. We don't stay indoors for fear of getting into a fatal car accident, because we know that the probability is low enough to that we can move on with our lives. But, we do put on seat belts, because were we to get into an accident, being belted and equipped with airbags substantially increases the probability of survival. We can reasonably do the math.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rconnor]

who said anything about rationality ? the reaction is a human factor

I agree that a lot of people’s reactions to climate change are emotional/ideological, not rational. That’s the problem, not an excuse. What both IRstuff and I are trying to say to you (and others) is the non-rational rejection of climate science is simply terrible risk assessment.

One thing that the discussion on this analogy has highlighted is some people’s misunderstanding of how to look at climate change science. Numerous posters have stated, in slightly different ways, “there’s no way climate science and climate models can predict what the exact temperature is going to be in 2100. Therefore, we don’t know enough to support action.” While the first part is true, it completely misrepresents what climate science and climate models are about. Climate models are projections, not predictions, and highlight the probabilistic range of temperatures/damages given a specific emission pathway.

Furthermore, the first part (cannot exactly predict) does not support the second part (inaction). Interestingly, when using the analogy, they never explicitly connected the two because, as IRstuff has demonstrated a few times, when you do, it highlights the absurdity of their logic - “Doctors cannot predict exactly when I’ll die and of what […therefore, I shouldn’t start exercising or eating healthier]”. More importantly, the second part is wrong in face of the relevant information on the subject. In the analogy, every shred of medical science suggests that exercising and eating healthy is beneficial and reduces the risk and extent of future ailments. Outside of the analogy, every shred of climate science suggests that reducing CO2 emissions is beneficial and reduces the risk and extent of future damages.

Connecting the two, basically some are asking climate science and climate models to do something they were never intended on doing and then use the fact they cannot do the thing they aren’t trying to do as evidence to support inaction, all while completely ignoring the vast amount of data, published literature and scientific knowledge that does support action. It’s not just incredibly poor risk assessment, it’s poor logic as well.