Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 Next
Comments 20101 to 20150:
-
nigelj at 07:50 AM on 2 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
Michael Sweet @12 and 13, a couple of things occur to me.
I have seen similar numbers, that many more work in renewable energy in America than coal. I think the net effect of Trump's coal policies will be to shift a few people from renewable energy back coal, which is no real gain for the country as a whole.
It's possible Trump also has visions of more coal export, but that will not be an easy road, given other countries are starting to embrace renewable energy. His whole coal plan is badly considered, and will crash into various economic realities, just as his other policies have crashed into various realities. There's a common theme happening.
I can understand coal miners wanting to protect their jobs. I mean its really important to have some empathy, (Im sure you would have) but times do change. I remember Margaret Thatcher closing down state owned coal mines,due to inefficiency and the discovery of north sea oil. It had to be done (although I'm not a fan of her general world view, and over zealous belief in markets).
The thing is for the government, and all of us, to help the people displaced from jobs, with appropriate assistance.
You know what Trump will say about the sea wall. He will say he doesn't doubt sea level is rising, just what the cause is. These people always have some slippery answer. I just pray he is voted out in 4 years.
-
michael sweet at 06:35 AM on 2 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
Tom Curtis @6,
While I am sure you are correct that Trump did not read the application for sea walls because of sea level rise, I think it is still appropriate to cite this application as if he did read it. If his corporation is concerned about sea level rise it is a strong argument that he should take action to help the rest of us.
-
michael sweet at 06:32 AM on 2 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
BBHY at 5:
I strongly agree with you. Recent DOE reports claim that 600,000 people in the USA work in renewable energy. Only 174,000 worked in coal counting transportation and energy production plants. The people who work in renewable energy need to increase their visibility.
Paul Krugman in the New York Times suggested that many voters in coal country voted against their own best interest because they have always thought that coal was critical for their economy. It is their mindset. The reality is that coal is only a small fraction of jobs. Even in West Virginia, one of the most coal dependent states, only a few percent of workers have coal related jobs. Many more have health insurance from Obama care.
Hopefully the renewable energy workers can get organized. Currently the fossil fuel executives dominate the politicians.
-
nigelj at 06:06 AM on 2 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
I don't think Scott Pruitt was completely doubting the greenhouse effect. He was more doubting whether we can quantify how much recent warming is the greenhouse effect, and how much is from natural influences. So the article is factually correct, but missed the target a little for me.
My understanding is most research says the warming since the 1970's is at least 90% due to human causes including fossil fuels and methane etc. I totally accept this evidence. This leaves the question of why Pruit would doubt the vast weight of evidence.
Instead he chooses to believe someone like Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen who minimise human contributions to climate change. It's hard to figure people like Pruitt out. Maybe they are just pig headed stubborn, (and definitely hypocrites)
-
nigelj at 05:55 AM on 2 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
Factotum @7, I agree with your definition of stupid, and comments on Donald Rumsfeld.
One reason people with high IQ's do weird or dumb things sometimes might be a lack of "emotional intelligence" which is empathy.
Long term creative thinking and planning also requires a strong imagination which is not the same as IQ. Einstein is believed to have an IQ of about 175, but also a highly developed imagination, and ability to visualise. It was a potent combination.
Neo-conservatism and extreme conservatism seems extremely retrograde and dangerous to me, but extreme liberalism has downsides as well. It's often (although not always) the extremes we need to be most worried about.
-
Tom Curtis at 04:56 AM on 2 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
joe @8, the statute in question (Clean Air Act, Sect 202 a 1; USC 7521 a 1) reads:
"The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Such standards shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines for their useful life (as determined under subsection (d) of this section, relating to useful life of vehicles for purposes of certification), whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such pollution."
In particular, the Administrator may only promulgate regulations regarding pollutants which "...which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare". That appears to be the basis of Pruitt's challenge, but it does not require an independent study by the EPA. Rather, in requires the Administrator to form an opinion, while placing no restrictions on how that opinion is formed. Clearly, regulations based on opinions not formed rationally would not stand against legal challenge, but an opinion formed by reading peer reviewed reviews of the evidence, whether in scientific journals, or from major scientific bodies, are formed rationally. Therefore, prima facie, Pruitt's case was based on bullshiting. That is especially the case given that the endangerment finding was not based simply on the IPCC, but on "...the Synthesis and Assessment Products of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) published between 2006 and 2009, the 2009 USGCRP scientific assessment, National Research Council (NRC) reports under the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) 2009 State of the Climate in 2008 report, the 2009 EPA annual U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, and the 2009 EPA assessment of the impacts of global change on regional U.S. air quality", two of which are the EPA's own products. They further relied on their own independent review of more recent literature. In short, even had Pruitt been correct in law, he was incorrect in fact with regard to the EPA's proceedure. These facts are likely to have been know to Pruitt before commencing the litigation, which served the purpose of sending a political signal to voters (and, as it happens, to Trump), rather than any real expectation of overturning the EPA endangerment finding by litigation.
This judgement of the argument (though not of the strategic reasons for the litigation) is not just mine. The US Court of Appeals determined, with regard to this argument, that:
"This argument is little more than a semantic trick. EPA did not delegate, explicitly or otherwise, any decision-making to any of those entities. EPA simply did here what it and other decision-makers often must do to make a science-based judgment: it sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to determine whether a particular finding was warranted. It makes no difference that much of the scientific evidence in large part consisted of “syntheses” of individual studies and research. Even individual studies and research papers often synthesize past work in an area and then build upon it. This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atomevery time it approaches a scientific question."
(My emphasis.)
-
joe - at 01:49 AM on 2 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
#4 Chriskoz - Believe it or not, Pruitt's primary argument was that the EPA should not have relied upon the multiple reports on climate change issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (established by the United Nations which synthesizes the work of thousands of scientists),
The statute for making the endangerment finding by the EPA is that the EPA is required to make an independent scientific inquiry. Relying on an outside group doesnt satisfy the statutory requirement.
-
JohnFornaro at 01:16 AM on 2 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Apologies for not knowing how to use the image link tool.
-
JohnFornaro at 01:15 AM on 2 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed image size.
-
JohnFornaro at 01:14 AM on 2 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
-
JohnFornaro at 01:10 AM on 2 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Tom Curtis @ 69:
"You have, off course, not actually presented the combined graph here. And certainly the original graphs do not have the same scale."
Off course I cannot share the graph I made because the software limitations of the site preclude the addition of one's own material.
Anyhow, here are the two graphs I compared this morning:
RealClimate, Graph #1 (The NOAA highest projection, Parris, et al, 2012)
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Horton_SLR_Survey.png
Colorado, Graph #2 (University of Colorado 2016)
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2016_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
Rob Honeycutt @ 70:
"You must know the key mechanisms at play in order to resolve this."
I'm afraid that it is more persuasive to present graphs of the data at the same scale. It should be clear that I am talking about measurable sea level rise, not the cause of the rise. You use the colloquial term "squash". I have applied a scalar transformation of the ordinate of Graph #2 to match the ordinate scale of Graph #1. I have no problem with using the colloquial term "squash" if it means, in this case, scalar transformation of the ordinate with the purpose of comparing two graphs at the same scale.
I have not chosen an indeterminate timeframe, but have limited my analysis of the two charts to the period, 2017 to 2020.
Graph #1 projects about 4cm of sea level rise in the period from 2017 to 2020. Graph #2 projects about 1cm of sea level rise in the period from 2017 to 2020, according to the trend line.
If either of these values is observed and measured between 2017 and 2020, would that be incontovertible evidence that the models predict sea level rise correctly?
Moderator Response:[JH] Models of sea level do not predict. Rather they forecast what sea level rise will be under a given set of input assumptions about climate forcings and other key factors. Ditto for GCMs.
-
factotum at 01:08 AM on 2 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
I am writing a book on managing stupid: Here is a key element.
Unable or unwilling to learn anything new except from an authority figure that you recognize and accept
note that this definition includes not only those with learning disabilities which puts their IQ in the room temp range, but also people who have IQ's in the mensa range.
For example, we have Donald Rumsfeld and his stupidity vis-a-vis the Iraq War. We have he Rocket Scientists who were responsible for the destruction of the Columbia, because they failed to learn from the destruction of the Challenger and failed to address the root causes the Explosion.
And we have After Long Term Capital Management imploded in 1997, and almost took down the world economic system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management Two of the prinnciples of LTCM were Myron Scholes and Robert Merton who won a nobel prize for their economic theories which were the basis of LTCM. So not exactly dummies. Unfortunately, they proved to be unable to see when the environment had changend, and their theories no longer applied.
CONSERVATIVE:
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one's ways; More
noun
1.
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
synonyms: right-winger, reactionary, rightist, diehard; More
I do not know how to fix this. I am fairly certain that the solution lies in putting together a log to psychologists and marketing people, backed with money and working with a principle that I just discovered called MAYA which is used in design. This is Most Advanced Yet Acceptable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAYA_Design bearing in mind that what is acceptable to a stupid conservative will be -— well limited.
I can say with a fair amount of certainty that logic and reason will have all the effect of trying to teach algebra to a fish.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:54 PM on 1 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
BBYH @5, apparently Trump is required to have a sea wall at Mar-A-Lago as a result of local ordinances. I saw no reporting that he was seeking to extend those walls due to fears about sea level rise. Of course, he probably should take some measures to combat sea level rise at Mar-A-Lago given that sea level rise is likely to face flooding in 210 days per year by mid century, although most of that will be in lower lying parts of the property away from the main buildings:
What I did find reported is that Trump applied for a permit for a sea wall to protect an Irish golf course he owns, citing increased risk of erosion due to sea level and more frequent storms, both of which are attributed to climate change in the application. Not too much should be read into that, however, as there is substantial evidence Trump does not read relevant documents submitted in his name and the citation may reflect the activities of an underling executing due dilligence, without reflecting Trump's actual views.
-
Jim Eager at 22:57 PM on 1 April 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
OK Tom, now it makes sense to me. Thanks.
-
Leto at 22:30 PM on 1 April 2017Models are unreliable
David @1039... You appear to misunderstand the nature of medical testing and medical prognostication.
You pregnancy example misses the point. Pregnancy is unusual in medicine, because it is an almost pefect binary condition - someone cannot usually be "a little bit pregnant" (ambiguous cases can actually occur, but they are rare). And of course, that binary nature partly reflects that pregnancy is not even a disease, but is instead a highly evolved biologically programmed physiological state. With pregnancy, there is little of the conceptual messiness that is usually associated with defining a disease and deciding which cases to lump together under the same categorical label. Pregnancy testing is also unusually accurate compared to nearly any other medical test you could have named.
Most medical conditions are less well-defined, and cannot be modelled with any accuracy. Although it is often known that, say, treatment A will be more effective than placebo, it is often not even known whether treatment A will be better than treatment B. Moreover, it is rarely the case that the precise disease course for an individual patient can be plotted predictively. For most cancers, for instance, a specialist will often quote an approximate median survival, which is no more than the time interval within which they expect half the patients with that cancer to die. For the individual patient, the actual surivival time is likely to diverge substantially from that median. Other times, the specialist may quote the expected 5-year survival as a percentage, but for an individual patient, 5-year survival will either be 100% or 0%, so the crude 5-year survival model does not apply.
Insisting on perfect prognostication before acting would be foolish in a medical context. If even one oncologist reported that a lung mass was an early-stage cancer, and that removing it would be associated with greatly improved median survival, then most people would have the mass removed. If a second, third and subsequent opinion is concordant, then it would be crazy to leave the mass in place, refusing to cooperate until the oncologist provides an accurate chart of its projected growth. It would be crazy to wait and confirm that the cancer really was capable of spreading to other organs, etc.
For climate science, we have the added problem that there is only one planet, and this is the first time that AGW has occurred, so we have to act before fine-tuning the prognostic model.
Don't confuse uncertainties in the fine points of prognostication with uncertainties in the diagnosis. There is no serious doubt about the planetary diagnosis at this point, and it is obvious what we need to do to fix it.
-
BBHY at 22:03 PM on 1 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
1) I heard that Trump has applied for a permit to build a sea wall at Mar-A-Lago to protect it from rising sea level. Can anyone confirm that? Seems like that would be an important point to use against his policies. It shows that his assertions that he doesn't believe the science to be totally phony.
2) Trump says he is helping energy workers, but I haven't seen anyone in the media point out that those in the wind and solar industries are also energy workers. Again, this is about politics, not about jobs or the economy or the science.
-
chriskoz at 21:10 PM on 1 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
Tom@3,
I think it's even possible to prove that we are talking about the deceit rather than hypocrisy here.
In his lawsuit against EPA as reported by Ecowatch:
Scott Pruitt filed a lawsuit to overturn the endangerment finding, which he and his fellow litigants characterized as "arbitrary and capricious." Believe it or not, Pruitt's primary argument was that the EPA should not have relied upon the multiple reports on climate change issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (established by the United Nations which synthesizes the work of thousands of scientists), the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) (a Bush administration body of 13 federal agencies that issued 21 reports on climate change) and the National Research Council (NRC) (the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences).
Pruitt's legal brief never quite explains what is wrong with relying upon the world's most prominent experts, but it claimed that the EPA in effect wrongly delegated its decision-making to these bodies.
(my emphasis)
Pruitt argued that the decision about about CO2 being declared pollutant cannot be made from the findings of the scientific bodies with highest expertise (IPCC) and highest organisation importance (NAS). At the same time, his statement quoted by this OP "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis" can only be interpreted as a willful lie because it's in 100% contrast with the intent of the lawsuit where he wanted to e.g. suppress the IPCC analysis as an input to EPA. Of course it's difficult to prove a deceit in a court. In case of Pruitt, he can always claim that he meant the "alternative science" (i.e. denialist organisations such as NIPCC) as debaters in his last statement, and claim ignorance to refute the charges. But it can be argued that at his level, he must understand the reality that the main participants in his "debate" are the ones he wanted to suppress. With just a minimum level of responsibility, one cannot possibly claim that he does not understand such basics.
Sadly, I think Pruitt would win such lawsuit in US court: just as his boss won the presidency: on the grounds of utter ignorance and disconnection form reality. How sad, how miserable is the state of US politics that led the absurd outcome we're witnessing.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:11 PM on 1 April 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Jim Eager @20, the CO2 oscillations that emit or absorb IR photons do so because they generate an oscillating dipole. If they did not, they would not be able to do so (as is conveniently shown by the symmetric stretching oscillation which generates no dipole, and emits and absorbs no IR photons). In CO, I suspect that there is only a single oscillation, ie, a stretching oscilation. Because CO always has a dipole, that stretching oscillation will also generate an oscillating dipole, and hence allow the emission and absorption of IR radiation at a precise frequency.
-
Jim Eager at 13:01 PM on 1 April 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Tom, I understand the CO2 bending and asymmetric stretching modes, but I'm still not quite grasping how CO works. It's not a stretching or bending vibration, it's simply becuse of the electrical charge imbalance?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:21 AM on 1 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
John... As for which predictive models is going to best project sea level rise, this is exactly my point.
You must know the key mechanisms at play in order to resolve this.
Current SLR is partly a function of thermal expansion of the oceans and partly a function of ice sheet contributions. The thermal expansion part is reasonably easy to model (for researcher capable of doing that work). Ice sheet contributions are vastly more complex.
Thus, I will say it one more time, squashing two charts down to the same scale will tell you absolutely nothing about the ice sheet dynamics which will be the primary issue with future sea level rise.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:11 AM on 1 April 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Jim Eager @18:
"How does CO, being a diatomic molecule, act as a greenhouse gas?"
In order to be a greenhouse gas, the molecule must exhibit a dipole, ie, a spatial difference in electrical charge resulting from one element within the compound attracting electrons more strongly than the other. In carbon dioxid, and carbon monoxide, the oxygen atom pulls the electrons more closely to itself. That is neutralized in carbon dioxide because the molecule is linear, and the oxygen atoms at either end of the molecule end with the same electric charge. Certain vibrations, however, result in a relative change in charge as shown in this image:
.jpg)
In the assymetric stretch, as the carbon atom approaches closer to one of the oxygen atoms, that side gains a slight positive charge relative the other creating a dipole. Likewise when the carbon atom moves out of the direct line between the oxygen atoms when bending, that also creates a dipole.
Carbon monoxide is simpler because it always has a dipole because of the different electrical strengths of the oxygen and carbon atoms.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:41 AM on 1 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
John Fornaro @68:
"I presented and compared the data from two charts at the same scale. Your characterization of my correct scalar presentation of the data is false."
I assume you are reffering to your method of comparing the graphs described @56:
"I pasted the colorado.edu graph mentioned above over the graph @40, squeezed it down to about the right scale at least on the abscissa. The ordinate of the colorado.edu graph should be flattened even more. 1 cm barely registers."
You have, off course, not actually presented the combined graph here. And certainly the original graphs do not have the same scale.
-
Jim Eager at 09:32 AM on 1 April 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Of course, Tom, I was just trying to simplify by keeping it to CO2 since that is the greenhouse gas that sancho asked about, but there is always a risk of oversimplifying, just as there is a risk of over complicating a concept by mentioning all the caveats. Still, "contribute to" would have been a much better choice than "responsible for."
Now for a question: How does CO, being a diatomic molecule, act as a greenhouse gas?
-
Tom Curtis at 09:15 AM on 1 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
Scott Pruitt's belongs to an administration that wishes to almost entirely defund climate science. Consequently, his statement that "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis" is entirely hypocritical, for while he presents himself as wanting to continue that debate, he is attempting to defund the collection of any data bearing on the debate. Personally I think that is because he knows what that data shows, and his statement is not just hypocritical, but deceitful.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:10 AM on 1 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
Alpinist @1, Eunice Foote was close. She observed the differences in rates of increase in, and final temperatures for various gases, noting that moist air and carbonic acid (CO2) achieved higher temperatures than did dry air (or pure hydrogen, or oxygen). However she attributed that difference to "the thermal action of the rays of light that proceed from the sun". That is not the greenhouse effect, as proposed by Tyndal, which is a consequence of the reduced ability of thermal energy to escape from the Earth rather than increased absorption of thermal energy from the Sun.
-
John Cook at 06:48 AM on 1 April 2017New podcast Evidence Squared by John Cook & Peter Jacobs
The ideal way is to subscribe via iTunes because then every time we publish a new episode, you automatically receive the new episode. I have an iPhone so use the Podcasts app - I'd just open the app, go to Search then search for Evidence Squared.
If you don't use a podcast app, you can listen directly via our website evidencesquared.com. Each blog post features an embedded player at the top of the post where you can play the episode.
Or you can go straight to the source and view our Soundcloud channel where all our episode mp3s are hosted.
-
Alpinist at 03:10 AM on 1 April 2017Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today
An interesting sidelight to John Tyndall's work...Eunice Foote, an American scientist:
Moderator Response:[TD] I made your link a link. You can do that yourself when you write the comment.
-
JohnFornaro at 01:54 AM on 1 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Rob Honeycutt @ 64:
"No, merely squashing a chart down is not — in any way, shape or form — a substitute for real analysis."
I presented and compared the data from two charts at the same scale. Your characterization of my correct scalar presentation of the data is false.
I only have time to read at the moment, and I might be back later.
-
JohnFornaro at 01:53 AM on 1 April 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
What is the best predictive model regarding sea level rise?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:24 AM on 1 April 2017Models are unreliable
David... Other's have offered quite a lot, but here's one more element that you might consider:
With climate science you essentially have one subject on which to perform any experiments or analysis. The subject has a very slow metabolism and a very long lifespan. And, all the relevant physics and effects only occur on or near a very thin surface area on the subject.
This presents both advantages and disadvantages relative to medical research. But moreover, it merely means the methods that scientists must take to understanding the subject matter has to be approached in very different ways. It's very hard to compare the two in any meaningful manner.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:47 AM on 1 April 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Jim Eager @16, very well explained. I do have to quibble, however, that CO, CH4, NO2, O3 (all four of which have natural and anthropogenic sources), various long chain carbon compounds of anthropogenic origin, and H2O all also contribute to the greenhouse effect. So also do clouds independently of the contribution of water vapour
-
Jim Eager at 00:24 AM on 1 April 2017Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases
Sancho, the key to understanding the power of adding only one molecule per 10,000 (from 3 to 4) is to understand that the other 9,997 N2 and O2 molecules do not absorb IR energy, only the 3 CO2 molecules do, and thus only the 3 are responsible for the greenhouse effect. The other 9,997 molecules might as well not even be there. Thus increasing the CO2 number from 3 to 4 has to increase the power of its greenhouse effect.
Think of it this way: if the effective dosage of a drug is 3 in 10,000 when disolved in distiled water and you increase the dosage to 4 in 10,000 you have increased the dosage by 33%, which could be fatal in some cases.
Or another analogy: think about what would happen if you added 3 liters of carbon black to a swimming pool containing 9997 liters of water. You might still see the bottom of the pool at the shallow end, but as you moved toward the deep end at some point you would no longer be able to see the bottom. Now remove a liter of water and add 1 more liter of carbon black. What would happen to the point where you could no longer see bottom?
As for the increase of 1.5F so far when we haven’t even doubled CO2 yet, remember that a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor, and that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. So, by warming the atmosphere by adding CO2 we have also indirectly added water vapor to the atmosphere, thus increasing the H2O greenhous effect as well.
-
John Hartz at 23:18 PM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
DavidShawver:
Something for you to chew on...
Researcher's 1979 Arctic Model Predicted Current Sea Ice Demise, Holds Lessons for Future
Study from decades ago proved remarkably accurate in showing how global warming would affect the Arctic's sea ice, currently in steep decline.
by Sabrina Shankman, Inside Climate News, Feb 20, 2017
Claire Parkinson, now a senior climate change scientist at NASA, first began studying global warming's impact on Arctic sea ice in 1978, when she was a promising new researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Back then, what she and a colleague found was not only groundbreaking, it pretty accurately predicted what is happening now in the Arctic, as sea ice levels break record low after record low.
Parkinson's study, which was published in 1979, found that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels would cause the Arctic to become ice-free in late summer months, probably by the middle of the 21st century. It hasn't been ice-free in more than 100,000 years.
Although carbon dioxide levels have not yet doubled, the ice is rapidly disappearing. This record melt confirms the outlook from Parkinson's 1979 model.
"It was one of these landmark papers," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. "She was the first to put together the thermodynamic sea ice model."
-
Eclectic at 16:29 PM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
DavidS @1039,
you are overlooking a vitally important point, which is :- global warming is already occurring now in a big way. There are no Ifs or Buts or Maybes. The signs (like with an advanced pregnancy) are very obvious, right now. The higher surface temperatures, the rising sea level, the loss of glaciers and plummeting arctic ice volume, and so on. All that is very plain and obvious. And since the known cause (of warming) is still operational and actually increasing — by around around 30 billion tons per year — the warming will continue strongly.
Even without any model projections for the future, it is clear to the reasonable man [as the lawyers describe him] that action needs to be taken now, rather than postponed for many decades. In a half-century or less, fossil fuels can be phased out, with little or no real economic cost (bearing in mind the already high price of health costs and other less obvious costs of operating a coal/oil fuelled economy).
The presence or absence of model projections is a relatively trivial matter, which may be of greater relevance to the lattermost decades of the 21st Century : but has minimal importance in practical terms of what actions we need to take both now and in the near future.
DavidS, your "pregnancy test" analogy is a very long stretch.
Perhaps a slightly closer analogy is this :- A young woman reports she has had no periods for 4 months : and her abdomen shows a smooth midline lump reaching almost to her umbilicus. Plus several other signs are present, indicative of pregnancy.
Yes, there is a 0.1% chance she is not pregnant. But the reliabillity and accuracy of a urine pregnancy test is almost moot. Her real interest and need, is to make decisions about practical things she should do now and in the coming months. She would be wasting her time if she agonises over whether the urine test kit is 95% or 98% accurate.
Timely practical decisions are needed, in tackling our rapid global warming.
-
scaddenp at 13:59 PM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
You also bring up medical test - the idea of what is "effective" is complex and the conclusions from testing can be very murky indeed. However, we dont see joe public (on the whole) thinking they know better than the medical consensus. Judging those results requires considerable domain knowledge, just like climate science. The scientific consensus might be wrong - plenty of cases where it is - but scientific consensus is what should guide public policy.
Also, treating the models as test of climate science is also are rather dubious assumption. There are numerous direct tests of climate science instead. Models though are limited by computer power, measurement gaps, subscale issues etc and underlying chaotic processes. This is not test of the science. The correct question to ask is "are the models skillful?". The answer is yes. They sure do better than the entrails of chicken or assuming climate is unchanging, and frankly, very very much better. Broecker 1975 practically nailed the 2010 temperature.
-
BaerbelW at 13:41 PM on 31 March 2017New podcast Evidence Squared by John Cook & Peter Jacobs
Robert - you can also just go to the Evidence Squared website and listen to them from there. On my iPad, I used the iTunes app, searched for the podcasts and downloaded them.
-
scaddenp at 12:44 PM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
I am not quite sure what you mean by "error rates in prediction"? What do you regard as "error"? Strawman arguments are favourite denier attack - eg . "climate model predict this (cue cooked graph), actual is this, therefore climate science is wrong". The important point to consider is what do climate models actually predict here. The answer is climate, not weather. They have no skill at decadal level prediction and dont pretend to. What they do predict with considerable skill is what 30 year weather averages will do. In the graph at the above comment you will see the grey area is "weather uncertainity". What this means is that any wriggly line in that grey area is consistant with the climate models. The solid black line is model average. You can see this more clearly on this AR4 graph.
Every single line is an individual run of the model. Every one of them, a possible climate future. Discussed in more detail here.
Furthermore, whatever their imperfections, (and modellers would be first to list them), they remain our best predictor for what future climate will look like. Yes, we would very much prefer to know whether climate sensitivity is closer to 2.5 or 4.5, but this is best possible at moment. Dont assume errors will be on the side of least effect. Uncertainity is not your friend.
"with far-reaching negative economic ramifications". Hmm, sounds like drinking the FF propoganda to me. Certainly negative for some industry sectors, but what are you using as the basis your assertion on negative consequence? Want to compare them with the costs on doing nothing and even a low sensitivity of say 2.5?
Also, please dont confuse physical models for predicting the future with statistical models (eg polls). Not a lot in common for functionality.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:54 AM on 31 March 2017New podcast Evidence Squared by John Cook & Peter Jacobs
If you have an iPhone you can just download the Podcasts app and get it there.
-
robert test at 10:45 AM on 31 March 2017New podcast Evidence Squared by John Cook & Peter Jacobs
I'm sorry but I can't figure out to listen (or are these videos?) these podcasts. I clicked on the link to download itunes and I successfully downloaded and installed itunes.
Then (I think) I subscribed to the podcasts. But the only links that are available are merely to download itunes. I don't see anyway to see or hear anything other than the promos for podcasts or for itunes.
I give up.
-
DavidShawver at 10:13 AM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
[I noticed a few typos in my previous post, in last paragraph it should read "Therefore it stands to reason that this "test" of climate science"
In second paragraph should read "What I am questioning is whether *their use in combination with other methods in climate science as it is currently practiced* has ever been demonstrated....]
-
DavidShawver at 10:01 AM on 31 March 2017Models are unreliable
Skeptical questions from a lay person: What if the accuracy of climate models does not continue to improve as is claimed, and the current error rates in predictions of global temperature each year continue at their current rate? Is it possible that the aggregative upshot of serial errors in temperature prediction could lead to a very different result than that which is currently being predicted by the present day models? And isn't the only relevant question for members of the public whether the climate models can accurately predict what happens in the future?
I am not denying that the physical science and math and statistics that goes into climate models are not scientifically valid and independently accurate in other applications. What I am questioning is whether they have ever been demonstrated to have the level of predictive value which would be necessary to project policy 50 years into the future and beyond.
An analogy: In the realm of medicine, prior to a treatment or test being administered it must be shown that the treatment or test is effective. When we are talking about a particular method which is in essence a test (to predict increased planetary temperature) the test must be capable of predicting what it is meant to predict. For example, the law does not allow pregnancy tests to be placed on the market, when such tests have not been consistently shown effective at predicting that a woman will eventually have a baby in actual real world clinical trials.
In my mind, climate science is similar. Climate science is an amalgum of scientific techniques and human judgments that can be thought of as a particular test (albeit much more complex than a pregnancy test) which is being used in order to predict the planet's future temperature. The lay people of the world are being asked to make serious policy changes with far-reaching negative economic ramifications on the basis of this particular "test" or methodology. Therefore it stands to reason that this "test" of climate change must be able to demonstrate that it has a record of being successful in predicting global temperature changes. Can we really say that? The discrepancy in the above graph between predicted and actual seems to belie that the "test" is really there yet. By the way, the same problem of lack of sufficient demonstrated predictive value for the purposes asked also exists in the political world, where everyone was wrong about Trump's chances.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:27 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JohnFornaro @63:
"Uhhhhh.... wut? I didn't get the meaning of that at all."
In your comment @56 you wrote:
"Tom Curtis @55:
"It will be a decade or two before we can significantly resolve which projection/model combination is most accurate with respect to sea level rise."
Which is fair on one level, but it is also permission for Congress to say, wait and see. Ten to twenty years is not three years."
"Waiting and seeing" for an indeterminate period is in fact doing nothing, hence my comment about acting as though the uncertain thing won't happen. That is not a rational response when there is a certainty of sea level rise, but uncertainty about the amount. That is particularly the case given that the earlier the policy response, the lower the overall cost of responding to sea level rise, at least if the initial steps are measured as with the two proposals I made.
"This makes some sense to me too, but is a 'run awaaaayyy' approach."
You ignored the section where I said:
"Standards for levies are a bit different as you greatly increase the cost of the response if you do multiple builds. There I suggest they set a standard for levies equivalent to a Katrina level storm surge plus around 1.5 meters. Again, they should commit to decadal review."
Clearly I was suggesting a two strategy response, with the particular strategy used in particular area dependent or relevant costs. Therefore your characterization of the strategy is an inaccurate caricature. I will grant that the different cost structure will favour retreat over the construction of levees, but as the percentage of land effected for any state other than Florida (where levees will not work, in any event) is small, that it likely the most cost effective strategy.
With regard to phobia, it is the nature of phobias to mistake irrational fears for rational fears. In this context, that comes from mistaking reasonable regulations for unreasonable.
With regard to my second preference strategy (the free market solution), it has the effect of placing the cost of adapting to sea level rise specifically on people living in low areas; whereas the cause of the costs are (mostly) the use of fossil fuels. That is, it accepts as a reasonable policy the existence of a large externality born by a small proportion of the population, but not paid for by the causes of the externality. To my mind that is irrational, but given the phobia about rational regulation in the US, I expect only the free market approach has a chance of getting up in the short term.
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 31 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Sailingfree @13, yes coal can certainly be a killer. Some research came out a couple of years ago showing burning coal is a much bigger cause of heart disease than previously thought as below.
I remembered this when I read your comments. Of course there are numerous other problems such as bronchitis etc.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:59 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JF... "I would say informally that neither Obama nor Trump are climate science experts, for example."
Interesting here is the avoidance of the obvious.
The former listened to and acted upon the advice of leading experts. The latter does not.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:56 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
JF @62... Apparently you chosen to ignore the point I've made. No, merely squashing a chart down is not – in any way, shape or form – a substitute for real analysis. You have to understand the processes at work. You have to understand the data. You have to understand other influences on the data outside of the specifics you're looking at. Tamino does the actual analysis that you're incapable of (here).
"To better persuade policy makers, climate scientists could present the data at the same scale..."
You're just not getting it, John. You're asking for something that won't visually show exactly what deniers avoid understanding. And you're not grasping how you're employing a technique that is exactly how people intentionally manufacture doubt about climate science.
Look, all the information is there. It's presented over and over in compelling ways that even children can understand. Those who don't understand these things are not failing to grasp it because it's being poorly communicated. They're not understanding it because they don't want to understand it. That's not something that can be changed through anyone's abilities of persuasion.
My often used comparison here is Martin Luther King. Dr. King didn't advance the civil rights movement by trying to persuade racists that their ideas were wrong. He did it by forcing our nation to confront the atrocity of our racism.
-
JohnFornaro at 04:02 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Tom Curtis @ 59:
" it is not a rational response to uncertainty to assume that, with 100% certainty the uncertain thing won't happen."
Uhhhhh.... wut? I didn't get the meaning of that at all.
"I would suggest that ... Congress to adopt now, a policy of converting to parkland ... [various low lying areas] ... using eminent domain". This makes some sense to me too, but is a 'run awaaaayyy' approach. [say it like Monty Python] Abandon the flooded areas. Perhaps like New Orleans? Remember that the Low Countries in Europe have been working the high sea level problem for many years with notable success, and that seems to be the approach that the Corps of Engineers is using in New Orleans at the moment.
But you mentioned "eminent domain". And then you asserted that "phobia about reasonable government regulation". What people actually have is a phobia about UN-reasonable government regulation. From a persuasion standpoint, 'unreasonable government regulation' is an LKS.
You do offer a free market solution that should be adopted as soon as is practicable, tho: "that buyers do not conceal faults in a [low lying] property they are selling, and that the government not subsidize the insurance, [nor] become the insurer of last resort for people who ignore the reality of sea level rise".
-
JohnFornaro at 03:48 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Rob Honeycutt @ 58:
"JF... Regarding sea level rise, if you merely squash a chart down you're unlikely to gain any valuable information."
I have to disagree. I squashed down the Colorado.edu graph to the same ordinate scale as the graph @ 40. The valuable information is that there is no catastrophic sea level rise out to 2020. The comment was made above @ 55 that "if a change of scales defeats a person, they lack that ability" to reason.
Clearly, getting the graphs at the same scale shows that the sea level rise, at least as predicted by the models of those 'experts', is not something to be alarmed about.
The prediction of a 1m rise in sea levels is out to the year 2100, and is the extreme level predicted by the highest 'expert' NOAA assessment. You ask,
"In terms of 'persuasion' what are scientists supposed to do?"
To better persuade policy makers, climate scientists could present the data at the same scale, project out to the same time, and work harder to refrain from berating the idiotic morons who comprise our government. At least do the first two things.
"What seems ridiculous to me is that people, such as Adams, have some expectation that if scientists were more clever with their words or graphics..."
Did I mention scale and timeframe?
The colorado.edu graph is a flat line on sea level rise over the same time frame that NOAA predicts a 4cm rise. Both graphs cannot be correct.
-
JohnFornaro at 03:32 AM on 31 March 2017A Perfect (Twitter) Storm
Rob Honeycutt @ 57:
"I'd have to say, that [my comment about how even 'experts' cannot determine the best climate model.] is a non-statement on par with, 'I can neither confirm nor deny... ' "
If you would drop a line along those lines to to Michael Sweet @ 43?
I totally agree with you that "persuasion without expertise" can be a dangerous area on many levels. I would say informally that neither Obama nor Trump are climate science experts, for example. You bring up, as an aside, I'm sure, the issue of morality, and this is a very important issue to bring up, since it is the morality of our government as a whole which has led to our involvement, as one example only, in elective war without purpose, since at least Vietnam.
Discussions about morality suck the air out of a discussion at approximately the same rate as a black hole sucks matter.
I'm trying to focus on two things only at the moment. Persuasion and sea level rise. Anyhow...
-
John Mason at 02:34 AM on 31 March 2017Nobody really knows: a Trumpworld dreamscape
Always good advice! But your skepticism was nevertheless appreciated! You later checked things out properly and came to and admitted a different conclusion - an excellent example of the scientific method.
If only we could accomplish the same with WUWT commenters!
-
sailingfree at 02:18 AM on 31 March 2017Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
Coal is a killer, independent of its affect on AGW:
Estimates I have seen of the people dying in the US from coal polution range from 12,000 to 24,000, every year. Estimates of jobs in coal range from 70,000 for direct miners alone, to twice that if transportation is included.
Using the estimates that are weakest for my argument, 144,000 work in coal for a year, and 12,000 people in the US die. Or, 12 people work for a year and 1 dies, or 1 coal worker kills someone else every 12 years.
It would make more sense to pay the workers not do coal.
(That is more deaths per worker than deaths per drug dealers.)
Prev 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 Next
