The War Against Climate Scientists

[troutman]

Originally Posted by kirant

Thanked you for this graphic.

Could you tell me what paper this was?

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publicatio...1_faq-2.1.html

[Knalus]

On a related, but slightly different side of this topic, I was wondering if anyone knows if any studies have looked into the heat island effect. It is a well known phenomena that cities are warmer than the countryside. This is for many reasons, but a large one is that humans heat their environment by burning coal, natural gas, generating electricity, ect. As cities sprawl, this area of heat islands starts to become non-trivial in terms of areal extent. Has anyone been able to quantify this effect?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But this is the type of obfuscation and confusion that drives me up the wall. Well read people such as yourself throw things at the wall for people to then lap up. "Well the CO2 composition of Mars' atmosphere is 95% and they don't have global warming there?!" It just serves to muddy what is perfectly clear.

The fact that this type of "obfuscation and confusion" is so easy to do contradicts your claim that it is "perfectly clear".

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

This is a 3 sided debate and the 2 largest sides are both motivated by politics and economics

1 side says it exists and the only way to fix it is to stop burning fossil fuels. They talk about the rape and pillage of the earths non-renewable resources, evil oil companies, and a redisitribution of wealth from larger nations to smaller all of which have nothing to do with a rise in the earths temperature.

2 this side says it doesnt exist

3 the scientific side only gives you the facts - sadly its very difficult to see a report that only has the facts as it likely wouldnt give much press.

If the GHG effect is what is causing the rise in the earths temperature then the solution put forward should be simple: reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by whichever means possible.

Either by reducing emissions or by finding a technology based way reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If I was a smart inventor that is what I would be trying to come up is a scientific way to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere instead of a socio-political game of shaming people to buy a crappy car. For this to work we need a % of good CO2 in the atmosphere - if the GH is a hypothesis then this number should exist somewhere.

While you may not like or may not agree with the surrounding message, side 1 generally has the science of side 3 behind its opinion on climate change. Because of that it is a more rational and tenable position to have.

I mean, it's possible the entire scientific community and its decades of research is completely wrong on this issue, but that's not a bet I'd take. I also think people are vastly overestimating how dogmatic science is. It can change on a dime if someone can posit a better hypothesis and have it stand up to rigors of review.

This is really no different than evolution arguments IMO. The effects cannot necessarily be seen immediately or reproduced in a laboratory so people assume that leaves tons of room for rational skepticism but that's really not the case. Someone would seem insane if they tried to sit on the fence regarding the "gravity debate" or the "flat earth debate" but many have no issue ignoring the mountains of one sided evidence for things like climate change or evolution. Skepticism backed by evidence is both acceptable and to be encouraged, but blind skepticism of science based on emotional reactions can be exceptionally problematic.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by troutman

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publicatio...1_faq-2.1.html

Thanks. I think you and I found it about the same time.

[mykalberta]

These are the type of scientists I like.

"The rapidly melting Arctic is an “economic time bomb” that will cost $60 trillion or more over the next 10 years, say a group of European economic and science researchers."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...ting-cost.html

When people actually put a number up in a reasonable time frame that we can go back to compare the guess.

"Gail Whiteman, of the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, Chris Hope of the Cambridge Judge Business School and Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at University of Cambridge"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Any examples of that?

It's a really terrible argument and almost deserves it's own fallacy classification. It's also trotted out by the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO crowds.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by opendoor

While you may not like or may not agree with the surrounding message, side 1 generally has the science of side 3 behind its opinion on climate change. Because of that it is a more rational and tenable position to have.

I mean, it's possible the entire scientific community and its decades of research is completely wrong on this issue, but that's not a bet I'd take. I also think people are vastly overestimating how dogmatic science is. It can change on a dime if someone can posit a better hypothesis and have it stand up to rigors of review.

This is really no different than evolution arguments IMO. The effects cannot necessarily be seen immediately or reproduced in a laboratory so people assume that leaves tons of room for rational skepticism but that's really not the case. Someone would seem insane if they tried to sit on the fence regarding the "gravity debate" or the "flat earth debate" but many have no issue ignoring the mountains of one sided evidence for things like climate change or evolution. Skepticism backed by evidence is both acceptable and to be encouraged, but blind skepticism of science based on emotional reactions can be exceptionally problematic.

I think the difference is while group 1 is using the correct science (as is generally accepted today), they also introduce other items which have nothing to do with the science as add-on reasons as to why to do something which are solely based on politics and economics.

Its the same type of bs argument all politicians make. Lets take 1 thing generally accepted as fact and then attach on a few pet projects that have only a very slight correlation to the factual item.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

On a related, but slightly different side of this topic, I was wondering if anyone knows if any studies have looked into the heat island effect. It is a well known phenomena that cities are warmer than the countryside. This is for many reasons, but a large one is that humans heat their environment by burning coal, natural gas, generating electricity, ect. As cities sprawl, this area of heat islands starts to become non-trivial in terms of areal extent. Has anyone been able to quantify this effect?

When the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature study started (the one that was supposed to vindicate all the people who thought the email leak showed climate scientsts were all in a big conspiracy), one of the reasons was to address the idea that the heat island effect was contributing to (or causing all of) the observed warming.

From their FAQ:

Is the urban heat island (UHI) effect real?
The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. The results indicate that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.

Lots more detail, though I haven't read this before:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rature-trends/

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by photon

When the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature study started (the one that was supposed to vindicate all the people who thought the email leak showed climate scientsts were all in a big conspiracy), one of the reasons was to address the idea that the heat island effect was contributing to (or causing all of) the observed warming.

From their FAQ:

Is the urban heat island (UHI) effect real?
The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. The results indicate that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.

Lots more detail, though I haven't read this before:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rature-trends/

Maybe it is just my understanding of this that is messing me up, I'm not talking about biasing the data, or skewing it due to the fact that measurements may be taken in a city as opposed to in the countryside. I'm wondering about the contribution of the heat island effect to overall heating. When the earth looks like this:



You start to wonder about that.

[photon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I mean, it's possible the entire scientific community and its decades of research is completely wrong on this issue, but that's not a bet I'd take. I also think people are vastly overestimating how dogmatic science is. It can change on a dime if someone can posit a better hypothesis and have it stand up to rigors of review.

It can happen if an underlying assumption changes or something, but the assumptions are usually well identified and understood.

Scientists that completely upset the paradigm that makes everyone throw out everything usually get rewarded with a special prize

I think we forget how much science actually does accept change, it wasn't that long ago (within living memory) that we had no idea about galaxies beyond our own and the universe was considered static.. accepting the notion of the big bang (which had pretty religious overtones) is a good example of changing pretty quickly.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The same scientific method that produced the refinement of petrochemicals is now telling us of their consequences.

One of these is accepted without question. What is it about the other one that is so repulsive?

So because we can drill for oil and use it make cars go fast and make cheap plastic products... that means we also will by default know how it will effect an entire planet??

Wow.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You start to wonder about that.

Oh sorry, I see what you mean. Basically changing the albedo of the planet, a black parking lot vs. something that would reflect rather than absorb kind of thing.

I think albedo due land change (deforestation etc) use would drown out any forcing due to cities absorbing heat, but I don't know.. I've read about people suggesting to use white shingles and paint building tops white, etc.

[photon]

Found this:

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?f...ileOId=1856935

No idea how good it is, but it does give some basic #'s like surface area and measured difference in albedo.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

So because we can drill for oil and use it make cars go fast and make cheap plastic products... that means we also will by default know how it will effect an entire planet??

Wow.

We're projecting the motion, life, and death of entire galaxies. I guess all of that work is a bunch of bunk too?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

The consensus is overwhelming, the number of credible scientists publishing completely opposing views (that warming is not due to humans) is very small.

See, this is the issue.

Science is not a popularity contest. You can't have an election on a scientific issue. Science is truth. When you have people on both sides threatening scientists with oppossing views with violence, something has gone horribly horribly wrong.

This issue is far from settled and continued investigation into multiple theories should be encouraged.

[photon]

Originally Posted by blankall

See, this is the issue.

Science is not a popularity contest. You can't have an election on a scientific issue. Science is truth.

Consensus does not equal a popularity contest. Consensus means most or all research across all relevant disciplines supports the theory.

But in a way it very much like a popularity contest.. science that is successful in describing and explaining phenomenon is popular. In that it gets tested, reproduced, confirmed, quoted, referenced, tested again, all in an attempt to disprove it. Consensus is arrived at via a kind of election, that election is the body of scientific evidence becoming overwhelmingly supportive of the consensus via testing and passing and continued use of accurate and successful science and the rejection and ignoring and disproving of inaccurate and unsuccessful science.

Science isn't truth, at least not in the way I think about truth.. true or false are boolean, it's either one or the other. Science does not work that way, science can have confidence that a theory is the most accurate explanation for a phenomenon, but it can never say something is absolutely true in the unquestionable sense of the word.

Ask a scientist if the sun will come up tomorrow, and they'll say that given the known laws of physics and the history, probably...

Originally Posted by blankall

When you have people on both sides threatening scientists with oppossing views with violence, something has gone horribly horribly wrong.

Well yes, the horribly wrong part is involving humans in the endeavor.

Though I don't see many threats of violence in the scientific literature itself, I think it takes beliefs rooted in ideology to inspire one to violence (unless the ideology is pacifism I guess). I wouldn't get violent to protect the theory of evolution, but I might to protect freedom of expression.

Originally Posted by blankall

This issue is far from settled and continued investigation into multiple theories should be encouraged.

On the surface this sounds nice, but I think practically it doesn't actually mean much.

The issue of evolution is far from settled, every day they probably generate more questions than answers, but that doesn't mean evolution in general should be regarded as false, or that we should be artificially directing money investigating intelligent design despite there being no good reason to do so.

In order for some theory to be pursued, there has to be some kind of indication as to why it is worth pursuing. Science builds on itself, and unexpected results or gaps in knowledge or theory drive advancement. Picking a random direction just because it's different than a consensus doesn't make much sense.. unless it's ideologically driven that is.

Even then investigation into multiple theories is absolutely possible, as I mentioned the BEST temperature series is a good example of something that started out that way. No one said they weren't allowed to do their work that some expected (or desired I guess) to come up with a different result than the other big temperature sets.

If someone has an alternative and they can support it, they will absolutely be recognized.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

Consensus does not equal a popularity contest. Consensus means most or all research across all relevant disciplines supports the theory.

But in a way it very much like a popularity contest.. science that is successful in describing and explaining phenomenon is popular. In that it gets tested, reproduced, confirmed, quoted, referenced, tested again, all in an attempt to disprove it. Consensus is arrived at via a kind of election, that election is the body of scientific evidence becoming overwhelmingly supportive of the consensus via testing and passing and continued use of accurate and successful science and the rejection and ignoring and disproving of inaccurate and unsuccessful science.

Science isn't truth, at least not in the way I think about truth.. true or false are boolean, it's either one or the other. Science does not work that way, science can have confidence that a theory is the most accurate explanation for a phenomenon, but it can never say something is absolutely true in the unquestionable sense of the word.

Ask a scientist if the sun will come up tomorrow, and they'll say that given the known laws of physics and the history, probably...



Well yes, the horribly wrong part is involving humans in the endeavor.

Though I don't see many threats of violence in the scientific literature itself, I think it takes beliefs rooted in ideology to inspire one to violence (unless the ideology is pacifism I guess). I wouldn't get violent to protect the theory of evolution, but I might to protect freedom of expression.



On the surface this sounds nice, but I think practically it doesn't actually mean much.

The issue of evolution is far from settled, every day they probably generate more questions than answers, but that doesn't mean evolution in general should be regarded as false, or that we should be artificially directing money investigating intelligent design despite there being no good reason to do so.

In order for some theory to be pursued, there has to be some kind of indication as to why it is worth pursuing. Science builds on itself, and unexpected results or gaps in knowledge or theory drive advancement. Picking a random direction just because it's different than a consensus doesn't make much sense.. unless it's ideologically driven that is.

Even then investigation into multiple theories is absolutely possible, as I mentioned the BEST temperature series is a good example of something that started out that way. No one said they weren't allowed to do their work that some expected (or desired I guess) to come up with a different result than the other big temperature sets.

If someone has an alternative and they can support it, they will absolutely be recognized.

A lot of what you are discussing has to do with the word "theory". A theory is something that has never been conclusively disproven. Both evolution and global warming are theories. The nature of many theories is that they are speculative and cannot be conclusively disproven, as we do not the understanding to do and it may not be possible for us to gain that understanding. You can, therefore, have multiple theories to explain one phenomenom.

So in this case, is man made global warming a good theory? Yes. Do we have the necessary understanding and evidence to disprove all alternate theories? No.

This is the process of science. There is no such thing as a consensus of views in science. There are theories.

[Tinordi]

This issue is far from settled and continued investigation into multiple theories should be encouraged.

Thing is we don't have time. You may think I'm some Cassandra but almost every reputable agency working on this issue has made increasingly alarming statements in the past 3 years about just how close to the cliff we are. Navel gazing to supporting multiple theories as you suggest is just another tired tactic of confusing the issue to try to do nothing about it.

Sure, there's a vanishingly small percentage that we may all be wrong, but there's a huge probably that this is real and not only that, the impacts are dire.

You can choose to sit there at your computer and just deny that to yourself as a way to make it feel better. But that's not sound. If we actually look into anticipated impacts of climate change we see significant strain to the basic ecological mechanisms that support human civilization. Don't you even remotely think that it might be prudent to do something about it? How can you seriously rationalize to yourself that this is an issue that we need not be worried about?

The probability that a changing climate will negatively impact you and especially any children you may have is higher than your house catching fire, but I assume you own fire insurance? So why the logical disconnect?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Thing is we don't have time. You may think I'm some Cassandra but almost every reputable agency working on this issue has made increasingly alarming statements in the past 3 years about just how close to the cliff we are. Navel gazing to supporting multiple theories as you suggest is just another tired tactic of confusing the issue to try to do nothing about it.

Sure, there's a vanishingly small percentage that we may all be wrong, but there's a huge probably that this is real and not only that, the impacts are dire.

You can choose to sit there at your computer and just deny that to yourself as a way to make it feel better. But that's not sound. If we actually look into anticipated impacts of climate change we see significant strain to the basic ecological mechanisms that support human civilization. Don't you even remotely think that it might be prudent to do something about it? How can you seriously rationalize to yourself that this is an issue that we need not be worried about?

The probability that a changing climate will negatively impact you and especially any children you may have is higher than your house catching fire, but I assume you own fire insurance? So why the logical disconnect?

We should be doing our best to come up with alternative energy sources and reducing oil/gas use as much as possible regardless of global warming theories.

You don't need to support man made global warming theory to see: how destructive the oil sands or off shore drilling are; how bad of an idea it is to support dictators in the middle east; or wonder about what happens when we run out. Try putting your mouth near the exhaust of an engine. I don't care if that's also heating up the planet, it's pollutive in its very nature.

My issue is not with constructive efforts to find alternative energy sources.