How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

[Juvenal]

If the Jerk who started this thread so desires.

*™

[demi-conservative]

I don't think that that's entirely accurate. The linked editorial wasn't any indication of "gotta fix it again", because almost all of the instances it talked about happened before the development of modern climate models. And there's less a lack of consensus on how much the temperatures are going to rise, as there is a consensus that the rise is going to be within a range, but we don't know enough to figure out precisely where in that range it will be.

The latter might seem a bit pedantic, but it's a fairly significant difference.


Again, that's not accurate. There are some consequences that we don't understand well, but lots of them we do. We know the ocean levels will rise. We know heat waves will become more common, cold waves less. We know areas with high humidity will see more precipitation, and that this will come in the form of increased storm intensity rather than more storms. We know that droughts will become more severe because increased heat will dry out the soils faster. etc.

There's uncertainty about the exact degree of those changes that will see, and how quickly the changes will take place, but little uncertainty about whether they'll happen.

Why and how much should society be changed? That depends a lot on the projected harms of AGW, because making changes will also have associated harms.

However, there just isn't consensus to give reliable figures, so there's really no good basis to start policy discussion how much to change societies and economies based on 'the threat of AGW'.

[shunyadragon]

Why and how much should society be changed? That depends a lot on the projected harms of AGW, because making changes will also have associated harms.

However, there just isn't consensus to give reliable figures, so there's really no good basis to start policy discussion how much to change societies and economies based on 'the threat of AGW'.

It is well documented that the rise in sea level is and will severely impact coastal cities and communities just as it have devastating effect on Venice, Italy. The populations of some islands have to be evacuated. The problem of the degree of impact is not a reason to question the devastating impact of the rise of sea level on the coast. Storm tides (not hurricanes) are having a devastating impact on the East Coast of the United States.

[TheLurch]

Trust has been hideously betrayed and undermined. It lasted longer than it had any right to, but trust seems to be seriously waning now. Not merely in the corners with those who are easily dismissed - skepticism of 'science' (the industry, not the methodology) is becoming mainstream.

Well, it's worth asking - do you feel that skepticism is justified? As in, do you think science gets things wrong more often than it gets things right?

Do you really think 'CO2 is a greenhouse gas' is the reason climate is a political issue? It isn't - the computer models are.

One, the fact that this has become a political issue is irrelevant. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas - and it is - it will warm the planet regardless of the politics.

And second, the computer models could all be discarded tomorrow and our understanding of climate change wouldn't end up any different. Computer models are one of a huge array of tools we've looked at the climate using. If you focus on them, you miss all the empirical data that tells us about the climate's sensitivity to CO2 levels.

There is evidence that CO2 trails warming - by up to 800 years - rather than leading it. That evidence is based in actual data, not modeling of data.

Let's talk about that then. The evidence of that time lag come from only a single, very specific context: the exit from our most recent glacial period. Entry and exit from glacial periods is driven by orbital forcings, which alter the distribution of sunlight reaching the Earth. So, we would not expect CO2 to initiate the warming seen.

On their own, however, the orbital forcings are unable to drive temperature changes larger than 1ºC. Glacial periods see changes of 4ºC. Why is the change so much larger? Because CO2 acts as a feedback, enhancing the impact of the orbital changes. Which is one of a vast number of demonstrations that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The public trust has been abused one time too many. Repeating the mantra that CO2 is a greenhouse gas simply won't quell the rising tide of distrust and skepticism.

Actually, polling has indicated that distrust of science in general remains low, and acceptance of scientists' conclusions about climate change has gone up significantly.

[TheLurch]

Whoa, it's not often I disagree with the Lurch.

You should try it more often! I'm told it's fun.

I brought the story into Nat. Sci. as a push back against the reaction to conservative pressure that has caused climate scientists to minimize the potential impacts of climate change. Any estimate is going to be wrong, one direction or the other, but the current political climate in the US has caused the overestimates to be neglected in favor of the underestimates.

I get that this is the argument it's meant to make. I just feel it does it poorly. The examples it uses are all cases where we simply didn't have enough data to understand an aspect of climate change, and that's a context where conservatism is appropriate. Scientists weren't minimizing the impact here; they simply had no information about the impact.

I agree that scientists have been overly conservative about some aspects of climate change - sea level rise springs to mind. But explaining why that was the case is challenging, as the underlying issues were subtle. So I can see why he went with the examples he used instead, since they're clear and easy to understand. Unfortunately, they simply are poor examples of inappropriate conservatism.

[TheLurch]

Why and how much should society be changed? That depends a lot on the projected harms of AGW, because making changes will also have associated harms.

However, there just isn't consensus to give reliable figures, so there's really no good basis to start policy discussion how much to change societies and economies based on 'the threat of AGW'.

Again, it depends on what figure you want to look at. There's strong consensus on many figures. Whether that consensus is enough to act is a value judgement. I understand where you stand on that value judgement, and it's not my goal to talk you into a different position. I'm just trying to make sure people have a strong factual basis to use as a foundation for forming that judgement.

[Teallaura]

Well, it's worth asking - do you feel that skepticism is justified? As in, do you think science gets things wrong more often than it gets things right?

As methodology, it gets things right most often. As an industry/political force, it should always be regarded skeptically and it has been caught in lies and fabrications far too many times to be trusted.

One, the fact that this has become a political issue is irrelevant. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas - and it is - it will warm the planet regardless of the politics.

No, the reverse is true - that plant food is also a greenhouse gas is only an issue because of politics.

And second, the computer models could all be discarded tomorrow and our understanding of climate change wouldn't end up any different. Computer models are one of a huge array of tools we've looked at the climate using. If you focus on them, you miss all the empirical data that tells us about the climate's sensitivity to CO2 levels.

This, too, is incorrect - and sadly points to the biggest problem with the models - we 'know' the right answer and confirm the models once they give it.

Let's talk about that then. The evidence of that time lag come from only a single, very specific context: the exit from our most recent glacial period. Entry and exit from glacial periods is driven by orbital forcings, which alter the distribution of sunlight reaching the Earth. So, we would not expect CO2 to initiate the warming seen.

And we get this from?

Also, CO2 is being force fed down the electorate's throat as the driver - any other case undermines the whole.

On their own, however, the orbital forcings are unable to drive temperature changes larger than 1ºC. Glacial periods see changes of 4ºC. Why is the change so much larger? Because CO2 acts as a feedback, enhancing the impact of the orbital changes. Which is one of a vast number of demonstrations that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

You're arguing facts already in evidence now. No dispute that it is a greenhouse gas - the question is whether it drives or rides.

Actually, polling has indicated that distrust of science in general remains low, and acceptance of scientists' conclusions about climate change has gone up significantly.

So few polls are large enough to be unweighted that in such uncertain polity we can discard any of the tinyies with safety. There are better indicators of growing public distrust and it's unwise to ignore them.

Any of these things have sample sizes larger than 10,000? That's still way small, but could be worth a look... assuming they aren't internet polls*.












*Mostly, anyway.

[TheLurch]

No, the reverse is true - that plant food is also a greenhouse gas is only an issue because of politics..

I've got no idea what you're arguing here. CO2 being a greenhouse gas - as scientists and dictionaries define "greenhouse gas" - is a factual question. Politics has nothing to do with it.

This, too, is incorrect - and sadly points to the biggest problem with the models - we 'know' the right answer and confirm the models once they give it.

I invite you to read the IPCC reports and discover that it is, in fact, correct.

And we get this from?

Widely understood scientific knowledge.

No dispute that it is a greenhouse gas - the question is whether it drives or rides.

Your mistake is thinking it's an either/or. It can easily be both, driving in some contexts and acting as a feedback in others.

So few polls are large enough to be unweighted that in such uncertain polity we can discard any of the tinyies with safety. There are better indicators of growing public distrust and it's unwise to ignore them.

Well, if you want to discard multiple independent polls that all point in the same direction, be my guest. But at least i can provide evidence to back up my claims.

[Teallaura]

I've got no idea what you're arguing here. CO2 being a greenhouse gas - as scientists and dictionaries define "greenhouse gas" - is a factual question. Politics has nothing to do with it.

Um, how many times do I have to literally concede this point? Yes, it's a greenhouse gas - so what? Unless you just want a tautology, it proves nothing about the question you posed.

It's only an issue because of politics. There's little empirical support for CO2 driving current warming - and none for the 12 year deadline. If not for the political power climate change garners as an issue, this wouldn't even be a footnote in Scientific American (literally, who'd bother to footnote CO2 being greenhouse gas?).

I invite you to read the IPCC reports and discover that it is, in fact, correct.

Disputed - for precisely the reasons I outlined.

Widely understood scientific knowledge.

Great, consensus... Seriously, from where? Empirical? Modeling? Karnak's hat?

Your mistake is thinking it's an either/or. It can easily be both, driving in some contexts and acting as a feedback in others.

Your mistake is thinking it can be anything but the driver in the political battle - and stop and think here a moment. In your original question, weren't you implying all skepticism is silly because CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That only matters in the debate because CO2 is the purported driver - if there is any other possibility, why is skepticism completely unwarranted as you implied?

Well, if you want to discard multiple independent polls that all point in the same direction, be my guest. But at least i can provide evidence to back up my claims.

In the present shifting polity? Anything weighted is suspect - because we can't tell shift from skew. That's why we disregard anything with a weighted sample - we no longer know if we're adjusting for skew or disrupting the data.

And that doesn't support part of your point at all. You said:

Actually, polling has indicated that distrust of science in general remains low, and acceptance of scientists' conclusions about climate change has gone up significantly.

The first part is completely unsupported by your google search.

That you think the second part is supported by good evidence is frankly silly - pull one you think has merit and I'll check it - but a page full of unreliable (because they haven't been reviewed) graphs isn't good evidence of anything other than your ability to use Google - and you know it.

[TheLurch]

Great, consensus... Seriously, from where? Empirical? Modeling? Karnak's hat?

Ok, i'm giving up on discussing this with you for three reasons.

1) I included the link specifically because it lays out the evidence - conveniently, in graphical form right at the top of the page. So, you clearly can't be bothered to even engage with what i'm saying.
2) You keep denigrating the evidence and explanations i provide without bothering to back up any of your claims at all, thereby ensuring i'm the only one who has to make any effort here.
3) You make blatantly false statements - "There's little empirical support for CO2 driving current warming" being a prime example - but then dismiss the scientific evidence that shows them to be false.

It's clear that there's absolutely no evidence i could provide that will shift you out of your position, in part because you won't do me the respect of even looking at the evidence i'm providing anyway. So, i see no point in wasting my time.

[oxmixmudd]

Why and how much should society be changed? That depends a lot on the projected harms of AGW, because making changes will also have associated harms.

However, there just isn't consensus to give reliable figures, so there's really no good basis to start policy discussion how much to change societies and economies based on 'the threat of AGW'.

Unless we can get past 'is the world really warming' and 'are we the cause' there can be no mitigation, regardless of it's potential impact.

The political and business forces at play here are all using basic public ignorance to stall the impact to themselves in terms of $$$ or continued employment as politicians to muddy the waters. And unfortunately ignorance of science is a fairly useful partner, because here in the US we have a large evangelical base that has been thoroughly conditioned to both fear science and accept global conspiracy theories through the twin arms of organizations like AIG and ICR and 'end times escatology' that tries to find fitting maps of the symbology in Revelation to existing political and scientific advances.

And it doesn't help that there are a non trivial number of high visibility scientists out there campaigning vocally against these same religious beliefs rather than trying to create bridges between the scientific and religious communities.

[oxmixmudd]

You should try it more often! I'm told it's fun.


I get that this is the argument it's meant to make. I just feel it does it poorly. The examples it uses are all cases where we simply didn't have enough data to understand an aspect of climate change, and that's a context where conservatism is appropriate. Scientists weren't minimizing the impact here; they simply had no information about the impact.

I agree that scientists have been overly conservative about some aspects of climate change - sea level rise springs to mind. But explaining why that was the case is challenging, as the underlying issues were subtle. So I can see why he went with the examples he used instead, since they're clear and easy to understand. Unfortunately, they simply are poor examples of inappropriate conservatism.

Any time the data would indicate the potential of a crisis, it is hard to avoid public backlash. I'm reminded of Y2K. IT was a serious problem, it could have had some pretty bad effects. But everyone spent a lot of money fixing it. And nothing happened (except some of us did not get to celebrate new years in the year 2000 because we were up all night monitoring systems that could potentially fail so that we could spring into action to fix them if our preventative work had somehow missed a line of code or two). Before it happened there were nutters everywhere stockpiling for Armageddon. But then, when nothing happened (because of an awful lot of very hard work), people started talking about the Y2K hoax.

I'm also reminded of some scientists in Italy that had mistakenly given out a low probability of a quake that did in fact happen being tried for manslaughter:

https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/11/...arthquake-fear

So my guess is climate science and scientists are never going to be on the positive end of public policy or out of the woods WRT conspiracy theories of various sorts - that is just what ignorance does.

[Juvenal]

On their own, however, the orbital forcings are unable to drive temperature changes larger than 1ºC.

I've seen the forcing tables in the IPCC reports, but I haven't seen this before. I want it. Sounds like a journal article. Give a guy a hand?

[Cerebrum123]

Sooooooooo?


Can't remember the name of the guy who used that as his go to retort, but he butted heads with jph a few times and "the horny doofus" ( Manwë) did a funny cartoon with the guy as the fumbling villain.



ETA: Grow thread, grow

Mickiel.

[rogue06]

Mickiel.

He would say "Grow thread, grow" but it was someone else who would respond with "soooooo" whenever he couldn't refute something.