Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Then correct us JL wirh your impatient hateful attitude. We lawyers are much more tolerant of your imbecilic comments on law than you on the comments of non scientists.

Scientists express themselves horribly to the rest of us. Su is correct a lawyer should be your speaker.

I happen to have an excellent track record as an expert witness, both in terms of written arguments and oral testimony. I would love to team up with SU someday. That would be a blast.

[creekster]

Interesting thread. Here's the thing: What does that 97% figure mean? Were they all polled? Was there a vote? If you asked the population of scientists who comprise the source about specific policy changes what would the consensus numbers be? The devil is in the details, as usual.

When I tried to run down the 97% figure on-line (in an admittedly cursory fashion) I found a bold statement by one study's author along the lines of "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that we are the cause." But when looking at an abstract of the article, the language is more guarded and qualified, stating: "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming." Quite a different thing, really. So all the figure means is that there is a clear consensus that GW is happening (isn't that clear? I don't think anyone really doubts that it is happening, although there does seem to be wide disagreement over how much and where it is occurring) and that some unstated portion of that warming, however that is defined, is being caused by human activity.

Well whoop-dee-freaking-doo. So what do we do with that scintillating bit of information? I guess it is really useful for winning the internet but it means just about nothing in terms of guiding a discussion about what, if anything, we should do about it. When you start looking into how much is caused by man and the extent of those effects and, more importantly, if they can be reversed and, if so, what decreased level of emissions would do the trick, the consensus disappears. In fact, most of the referenced scientists have absolutely no idea how to even answer those questions. So before we start impairing or eliminating opportunities for real people in real jobs I would like to have a much clearer idea of what we are doing and of the evidence, if any, that supports why we are doing it.

One other comment: The notion that 'science' is this emotionless process that seeks and finds only the truth is kind of amusing. selection of criteria, sources of data, etc., are all susceptible to prior bias. Where there is a broad consensus of result, of course, such bias is not meaningful. But in instances where there is no consensus, such as what do we do about it, the bias can have a significant and substantial effect. As a result, I have a very hard time when I see politicians lay claim to the 97% as a basis for some policy directive or another.

[myboynoah]

Interesting thread. Here's the thing: What does that 97% figure mean? Were they all polled? Was there a vote? If you asked the population of scientists who comprise the source about specific policy changes what would the consensus numbers be? The devil is in the details, as usual.

When I tried to run down the 97% figure on-line (in an admittedly cursory fashion) I found a bold statement by one study's author along the lines of "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that we are the cause." But when looking at an abstract of the article, the language is more guarded and qualified, stating: "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming." Quite a different thing, really. So all the figure means is that there is a clear consensus that GW is happening (isn't that clear? I don't think anyone really doubts that it is happening, although there does seem to be wide disagreement over how much and where it is occurring) and that some unstated portion of that warming, however that is defined, is being caused by human activity.

Well whoop-dee-freaking-doo. So what do we do with that scintillating bit of information? I guess it is really useful for winning the internet but it means just about nothing in terms of guiding a discussion about what, if anything, we should do about it. When you start looking into how much is caused by man and the extent of those effects and, more importantly, if they can be reversed and, if so, what decreased level of emissions would do the trick, the consensus disappears. In fact, most of the referenced scientists have absolutely no idea how to even answer those questions. So before we start impairing or eliminating opportunities for real people in real jobs I would like to have a much clearer idea of what we are doing and of the evidence, if any, that supports why we are doing it.

One other comment: The notion that 'science' is this emotionless process that seeks and finds only the truth is kind of amusing. selection of criteria, sources of data, etc., are all susceptible to prior bias. Where there is a broad consensus of result, of course, such bias is not meaningful. But in instances where there is no consensus, such as what do we do about it, the bias can have a significant and substantial effect. As a result, I have a very hard time when I see politicians lay claim to the 97% as a basis for some policy directive or another.

Oh you probably believe in Bigfoot.

Have you not seen Uncle Ted's map?!?!? Florida freakin disappears, man! It disappears!

[Indy Coug]

Oh you probably believe in Bigfoot.

Have you not seen Uncle Ted's map?!?!? Florida freakin disappears, man! It disappears!

At least we'd finally get rid of those damn alligators.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting thread. Here's the thing: What does that 97% figure mean? Were they all polled? Was there a vote? If you asked the population of scientists who comprise the source about specific policy changes what would the consensus numbers be? The devil is in the details, as usual.

When I tried to run down the 97% figure on-line (in an admittedly cursory fashion) I found a bold statement by one study's author along the lines of "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that we are the cause." But when looking at an abstract of the article, the language is more guarded and qualified, stating: "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming." Quite a different thing, really. So all the figure means is that there is a clear consensus that GW is happening (isn't that clear? I don't think anyone really doubts that it is happening, although there does seem to be wide disagreement over how much and where it is occurring) and that some unstated portion of that warming, however that is defined, is being caused by human activity.

First of all (as has been stated many times above), there are many ways to gauge consensus. There have been several cases where someone has systematically reviewed the literature, not just the one you cite above. In addition to the literature surveys, you have lots of polls targeted at the relevant scientists and you have position statements made by the scientific societies and organizations. All of these measures show a broad consensus that the earth is warming and man-made greenhouse gases are having a major impact. Is everyone going to agree on the exact percentage of impact of the man-made gases? Of course not, but the consensus on the human impact is greater than you imply.

Well whoop-dee-freaking-doo. So what do we do with that scintillating bit of information?

Whoa. Creekster. Enough with the arrogance!

I guess it is really useful for winning the internet but it means just about nothing in terms of guiding a discussion about what, if anything, we should do about it. When you start looking into how much is caused by man and the extent of those effects and, more importantly, if they can be reversed and, if so, what decreased level of emissions would do the trick, the consensus disappears. In fact, most of the referenced scientists have absolutely no idea how to even answer those questions. So before we start impairing or eliminating opportunities for real people in real jobs I would like to have a much clearer idea of what we are doing and of the evidence, if any, that supports why we are doing it.

This is mostly a policy issue, not a science issue. Yeah, by all means let's have this discussion. But most people (not just here) are too busy denying the science to move to this stage of the discussion.

One other comment: The notion that 'science' is this emotionless process that seeks and finds only the truth is kind of amusing. selection of criteria, sources of data, etc., are all susceptible to prior bias. Where there is a broad consensus of result, of course, such bias is not meaningful. But in instances where there is no consensus, such as what do we do about it, the bias can have a significant and substantial effect. As a result, I have a very hard time when I see politicians lay claim to the 97% as a basis for some policy directive or another.

Straw man. Nobody claimed that the process was free from bias. But the process has built-in mechanisms (reliance on evidence and repeatability) that serve to counteract bias over time.

[creekster]

First of all (as has been stated many times above), there are many ways to gauge consensus. There have been several cases where someone has systematically reviewed the literature, not just the one you cite above. In addition to the literature surveys, you have lots of polls targeted at the relevant scientists and you have position statements made by the scientific societies and organizations. All of these measures show a broad consensus that the earth is warming and man-made greenhouse gases are having a major impact. Is everyone going to agree on the exact percentage of impact of the man-made gases? Of course not, but the consensus on the human impact is greater than you imply.

I didn't imply anything. I quoted the abstract. I have no doubt there are other sources for the figure, but I do doubt they are any more dispositive than the conclusion I quoted.

Whoa. Creekster. Enough with the arrogance!

Arrogance? I guess. But I don't really think it is any more arrogant than dispensing with someone else's argument about the issue with a haughty claim that they simply don't understand science. But, sure, I'm arrogant. I think I'm right. And I think the 97% 'fact' is, in a fashion, scientific but also almost worthless.

This is mostly a policy issue, not a science issue. Yeah, by all means let's have this discussion. But most people (not just here) are too busy denying the science to move to this stage of the discussion.

Mostly a policy issue? No, it's not. It is a science-can't-answer-the-question issue. Let's say I grant you exactly what you claim in your first paragraph. GW is happening and the major cause is human action. OK. So what? Or, more importantly, now what? I want to know what's going to happen and what we should do. So I look to science, which I may not understand, and seek guidance for policy. Lo and behold, what happens to the 97% consensus? It evaporates. And here's the real problem, in my mind: so many of the science types are so busy advocating for the premise of AGW that they tend to overstate and exaggerate and, as a result, lose credibility when the discussion turns to what matters. Telling me that you don't want to discuss it because you are so busy fighting people who don't accept your premise is a policy debate strategy, not a scientific imperative.

Straw man. Nobody claimed that the process was free from bias. But the process has built-in mechanisms (reliance on evidence and repeatability) that serve to counteract bias over time.

I guess one supposed straw man deserves another, because I never said it didn't counteract bias. In fact, I said the opposite. The irony here (and I don't really care if Triplet agrees with my usage or not, as I am just that arrogant) is that questioning the process used in scientific analysis is exactly the sort of built-in mechanism you are talking about. Now that questioning may be unduly repetitive and pointless in some parts of this debate, but not in all of them, and dismissing them all with a waive of the hand doesn't really further the cause or answer the next set of issues that we will have to address if the premise is accurate. For example, your presentation of the modeling explanation was, in my arrogant opinion, more useful in advancing your position than almost anything else you posted in this thread. But, that's just me.

[Topper]

For example, your presentation of the modeling explanation was, in my arrogant opinion, more useful in advancing your position than almost anything else you posted in this thread. But, that's just me.

Add one. I found that presentation useful.

[Uncle Ted]

Oh you probably believe in Bigfoot.

Have you not seen Uncle Ted's map?!?!? Florida freakin disappears, man! It disappears!

So the question here is how many SEC/ACC teams disappear as well and would BYU be able to take their place.

[creekster]

So the question here is how many SEC/ACC teams disappear as well and would BYU be able to take their place.

Now THAT'S the sort of policy issue I need science to help with!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I didn't imply anything. I quoted the abstract. I have no doubt there are other sources for the figure, but I do doubt they are any more dispositive than the conclusion I quoted.

I was referencing this part of your post:

...although there does seem to be wide disagreement over how much and where it is occurring) and that some unstated portion of that warming, however that is defined, is being caused by human activity.

The phrase "some unstated portion" implies low certainty that the warming response is primarily anthropogenic. That is not the case.

Arrogance? I guess. But I don't really think it is any more arrogant than dispensing with someone else's argument about the issue with a haughty claim that they simply don't understand science. But, sure, I'm arrogant. I think I'm right. And I think the 97% 'fact' is, in a fashion, scientific but also almost worthless.

Geez... It was a joke. Lighten up.

Mostly a policy issue? No, it's not. It is a science-can't-answer-the-question issue. Let's say I grant you exactly what you claim in your first paragraph. GW is happening and the major cause is human action. OK. So what? Or, more importantly, now what? I want to know what's going to happen and what we should do. So I look to science, which I may not understand, and seek guidance for policy. Lo and behold, what happens to the 97% consensus? It evaporates.

I have no idea where you got this notion. Climate modelers can very easily change the inputs to the models and predict how the climate will respond based on various scenarios of future CO2 output. THEY DO THIS ALL THE TIME.

But when when it comes to the question of how much change in CO2 output is economically viable (you can only have a coordinated and effective response if you have a viable economy) or how and if such changes would be implemented, then you are firmly in the realm of economics, politics, etc.

And here's the real problem, in my mind: so many of the science types are so busy advocating for the premise of AGW that they tend to overstate and exaggerate and, as a result, lose credibility when the discussion turns to what matters. Telling me that you don't want to discuss it because you are so busy fighting people who don't accept your premise is a policy debate strategy, not a scientific imperative.

I think this is a biased perception on your part. For example, I never said that I don't want to discuss it! I am happy to discuss that.

I guess one supposed straw man deserves another, because I never said it didn't counteract bias. In fact, I said the opposite. The irony here (and I don't really care if Triplet agrees with my usage or not, as I am just that arrogant) is that questioning the process used in scientific analysis is exactly the sort of built-in mechanism you are talking about. Now that questioning may be unduly repetitive and pointless in some parts of this debate, but not in all of them, and dismissing them all with a waive of the hand doesn't really further the cause or answer the next set of issues that we will have to address if the premise is accurate. For example, your presentation of the modeling explanation was, in my arrogant opinion, more useful in advancing your position than almost anything else you posted in this thread. But, that's just me.

Um... Thanks?

[creekster]

I was referencing this part of your post:



The phrase "some unstated portion" implies low certainty that the warming response is primarily anthropogenic. That is not the case.

Not sure how you take that as the implication. It is a fact that the portion of warming attributed is not stated in the study conclusion. Moreover, the degree of certainty or the proportion of GW that is AGW is not a criteria used to bring a study within the 97% instead, the paper only needs to 'endorse' AGW. You may be right, but that is not what the 97% figure is based on. Instead, that figure is based only on a mere 'endorsement' of AGW.

I have no idea where you got this notion. Climate modelers can very easily change the inputs to the models and predict how the climate will respond based on various scenarios of future CO2 output. THEY DO THIS ALL THE TIME.

of course they do, but is there a 97% consensus as to which model should be used? or how likely it is to be accurate, especially in the relative near term where the economic dislocations will be felt the most?

But when when it comes to the question of how much change in CO2 output is economically viable (you can only have a coordinated and effective response if you have a viable economy) or how and if such changes would be implemented, then you are firmly in the realm of economics, politics, etc.

True, but the policy question of economic viability needs to be informed by the likelihood of economic dislocation (think of Uncle Ted's 200 foot map) and that seems, to me, where the science is lacking.

So, what, specifically, do you think we should do, then? Please support your suggestion with a consensus-based scientific analysis. 97% consensus is preferred.

[Uncle Ted]

So, what, specifically, do you think we should do, then? Please support your suggestion with a consensus-based scientific analysis. 97% consensus is preferred.

Here is my idea... We set off a small nuclear device in the Yellowstone caldera and light that candle. This should cause the volcano to spew large amounts of volcanic material in the sky, blocking the sun, and cooling everything down. Of course, we might lose the northwestern part of the US but I think we can live with this cost. On the bright side the summer down in Texas should be nice for once.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The new bit of hysteria is that the oceans are going to rise three feet by 2100. This is based off "alarming" rates of ice melt in Greenland and Antartica. This story was in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/sc...etType=nyt_now

It seems as if this story forces someone to either be anti-science (according to JL) or anti-arithmetic and anti-geometry. Here's a TLDR basic analysis of the arithmetic behind the 3 foot ocean level increase:

The most recent climate alarmism is the report claiming increased ice melt in the West Antarctic glaciers, supposedly a leading indicator of a catastrophic, exponential, unstoppable rise in sea levels with devastating consequences for low lying areas and coastal cities. Irrespective of the validity and accuracy of the reported measurements of ice melt, the projection of future catastrophe is laughably implausible — and a simple analysis of the spherical geometry of the planet shows why the alarmism is entirely unwarranted.
Let’s start with the often repeated claim that we can project a sea level rise of at least 3 feet by the end of the century — 86 years from now. It is easy to calculate the volume of ice that would have to melt to produce that increased level and then compare it to the allegedly observed melt to determine how plausible the alarmism is.
To say that sea level will rise by 3 feet is to say that the nominal radius of the Earth would increase. But because of the “piling up” of water against the 30% of the Earth’s surface that is land, the average increase in radius (if there were no land against which the sea water would “pile up”) would be less than 3 feet, to a first approximation 3 * .7 = 2.1 feet. How much volume would the sphere of the Earth increase if its radius increased by 2.1 feet from ice melt? The volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*radius(3). If we take the pre-melt radius as 4000 miles and the post melt radius as 4000 miles plus 2.1 feet, the volume increase is approximately 80,000 cubic miles. All of this, by assumption, is in the 70% of the Earth’s surface which is water to effect a three foot rise in the sea level.
So over a period of 86 years remaining until the end of the century, 80,000 cubic miles of water from ice melt would be required for a three foot rise in sea level, or about 930 cubic miles per year. Is this a lot? Or a little? Well, compared to the amounts of ice melt actually being observed from Antarctica and Greenland — and now being hyped by alarmists — it is huge.
Today’s report in the New York Times, “The Big Melt Accelerates,” is revealing — if you do the math, which, of course, they don’t. The Times report claims that 310 billion tons of water melted into the oceans from Antarctic and Greenland glaciers and another 260 billion tons, amazingly, from the 1% of the Earth’s land-based ice that is in mountain glaciers. Is the total of 570 billion tons of water from ice melt a little or a lot?
Since they are measuring metric tons, that amounts to 1.25 x 10(15) pounds of water, which at 8.35 pounds per gallon is 1.5 x 10(14) gallons which, in turn, at 7.5 gallons per cubic foot is 2 x 10(13) cubic feet. At 52,803 cubic feet to a cubic mile we have 136 cubic miles of water or about 148 cubic miles of ice when adjusted for the expansion of water as it freezes. That’s about 12 miles square of glacier assuming on average the glaciation is 1 mile thick.
This compares to the required 930 cubic miles of water per year for 86 years to get to a sea level rise of 3 feet at the end of the century — a factor of almost 7 times what is said to be observed. Stated differently, at the new alarmingly increased level of ice melt it would take about 600 years for the purported 3 foot rise in sea level to obtain; the implied rise is 6 one-hundreds of an inch per year, or about 5.25 inches by the year 2100.
There is nothing complicated in this analysis — it’s just simple geometry and arithmetic. And it takes as given the reported observations of allegedly increased ice melt. It is patently obvious that for the catastrophic flooding massively hyped by the MSM and climate change alarmists to happen there must be a HUGE increase in glacier melt in West Antarctica and Greenland starting now and continuing. Every year that the observed ice melt does NOT increase by a factor of 7 from today’s rate of melt just requires an even greater increase in subsequent years for the alarmists’ predictions to happen. Exponential, indeed.
It seems exceedingly implausible that the rate of ice melt can accelerate over the next 86 years to produce a 3 foot rise in ocean surface levels and consequent land inundation. It would require an enormous and sustained discontinuity in the observed rate of ice melt starting immediately for this result to obtain — or else a huge future explosive and exponential rate of ice melt. If the IPCC is in fact predicting such a pattern it is extremely convenient since no dramatic presently observed ice melt is required for this prediction to be treated as “true!”
As to why the MSM and their fellow alarmists would fail to check the plausibility of these projections by offering the simple math, that is left as an exercise for the reader.

This puts me in an uncomfortable position. Either I have to be anti-arithmetic in order to join in the JL/ER/SoonerCoug "pro-science" circlejerk, or I am anti-science according to the circlejerk crowd by choosing to believe in arithmetic.

[Paperback Writer]

Here is my idea... We set off a small nuclear device in the Yellowstone caldera and light that candle. This should cause the volcano to spew large amounts of volcanic material in the sky, blocking the sun, and cooling everything down. Of course, we might lose the northwestern part of the US but I think we can live with this cost. On the bright side the summer down in Texas should be nice for once.

Hold on there... That might mean I have to scrape the ice/snow off my car more than once or twice a winter. Not to mention the possible purchase of a snow shovel. Years ago while vacationing in Colorado, my kids saw a snow shovel at a hardware store. They didn't know what it was.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not sure how you take that as the implication. It is a fact that the portion of warming attributed is not stated in the study conclusion. Moreover, the degree of certainty or the proportion of GW that is AGW is not a criteria used to bring a study within the 97% instead, the paper only needs to 'endorse' AGW. You may be right, but that is not what the 97% figure is based on. Instead, that figure is based only on a mere 'endorsement' of AGW.

As I stated above, there are many ways to gauge consensus. If you don't like the manner in which that particular study is done, fine. Ignore it.

of course they do, but is there a 97% consensus as to which model should be used? or how likely it is to be accurate, especially in the relative near term where the economic dislocations will be felt the most?

The level of confidence in the prediction would depend greatly upon the particular condition being analyzed. What level of confidence is necessary to change behavior? That is an excellent (and difficult) policy question.

True, but the policy question of economic viability needs to be informed by the likelihood of economic dislocation (think of Uncle Ted's 200 foot map) and that seems, to me, where the science is lacking.

Again, I am not sure why you say that. The science can estimate probabilities of various scenarios.

So, what, specifically, do you think we should do, then? Please support your suggestion with a consensus-based scientific analysis. 97% consensus is preferred.

(btw: your ongoing snark over the 97% term is funny given your history of lecturing about tone.)

I don't really have specific recommendations. It is an extraordinarily complex question. If we do nothing to change output, we will potentially be faced with massive costs due to a huge variety of impacts, not just rising ocean levels. But cutting back CO2 emissions would also be extremely costly. We would need to examine a variety of scenarios that take into account risk, cost-benefit, etc and then determine a strategy (which would surely evolve over time) that provides some kind of balance without crippling our economy. We could prioritize strategies. For example, I am a fan of nuclear energy as it is a way to generate power without producing CO2. I think deep carbon sequestration of CO2 produced by coal-fired power plants is far too costly at present. In any case, getting elected officials and policy-makers to agree on a strategy is enormously difficult. I suspect that we won't start to agree that something needs to be done until the impacts are undeniable to all but the most stubborn. And at that point, it might be too late. Tough problem.