Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

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:



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.

Good news, CMBF: there is a third alternative! This guy's calculations could be wrong.

[cowboy]

Sea ice vs land ice (it is melting land ice that is problematic) and area vs. volume.

http://theconversation.com/why-is-an...-growing-19605

That makes some sense. I don't know that I completely understand it, but I get it now better than I did, thanks.

Explained here:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/.../07_02_15.html

The amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes wasn't my question. Rather, I'm wondering if part of the hockey-stick warming trend could be partly attributed to a resumption to a longer term warming trend that was interrupted by global cooling resulting from the two huge volcanic eruptions in the 19th century - kind of like a v-like gdp recovery after a recession. Perhaps that is too simplistic, but I'm kind of a simple minded person.

California being underwater in 15 years was not the scientific consensus (Al Gore is a nut - ignore him). For the last 10 years or so, world temps have flattened somewhat due to an el nino event. These happen (and will continue to happen) periodically, but they are short-term anomalies that unfortunately don't have a long-term impact on GW. There will alway be some level of noise in the short term, but it is the long-term changes that matter. Climate models are not expected to accurately track short-term noise. From what I understand, the impact of AGW will occur gradually over several centuries.

I was being somewhat facetious about CA being under water, but the warming does seem to have slowed considerably, and it seems that temps are much cooler than were predicted (I'm getting this information from an interesting WSJ article written by two former members of the IPCC.) An el nino event makes sense, but wouldn't that also be the reason for the extreme drought in the Southwest? It's my understanding that the drought in CA is currently a product of a 2,000 mile long ridge of high pressure that is pushing moisture north (and believe me, we've been getting it,) so the net effect precipitation effect is pretty close to normal. Is a high pressure ridge the product of global warming, or just a product of varying climatic conditions that are normal? Also, how much of the climate change that we are seeing can be attributed to variation from the sun, and how do we measure that? Sorry for all the questions, but I'm really curious about this.

I'm not skeptical that the earth is warming or that we are in some way contributing to it, though the extent we are contributing to it I think is still a wild-ass guess. What I am skeptical about is how much the earth will warm, and what the effects will be. What it sounds like you were describing is a Monte Carlo simulation method to estimate warming and it's effects. This is where I'm ignorant, as a guy who has never taken calculus and only took basic stats. The problem I see with simulations in the modeling I do in our business, granted on a smaller scale as we are only dealing with cattle prices, is that the more variables there are, the wider the range of realistic possibilities. Also, a model is only as useful as the parameters are accurate. Given the virtually endless number of variables, and the fact that estimating many of these variables with any degree of accuracy (eg solar variation, atmospheric adaptability, etc.) the task of modeling the future climate seems overwhelming. Further, we're dealing with out-of-sample parameters for some of these things (the rate C02 is being emitted, etc.) which makes the problem even stickier.

My questions about the modeling come from personal experience. We modeled cattle prices in 2004 and had a highly accurate price forecasting model. We published our results and changed the way that ag economists had been forecasting calf prices for two decades (yes that's a straight brag.) Then in 2008, the energy policy changed and corn prices doubled. Prices had historically been dependent on corn prices, the higher corn was, the lower calf prices would be. At the same time, beef prices began setting new highs. Our model, incorporated these new prices, but we found that we were consistently undershooting the actual market. What we had not been able to incorporate into our model was the industry's ability to adapt, using ethanol byproducts to replace corn, keeping cattle on pasture longer, etc. and the magnitude of the effect of astronomically high beef prices on the price of calves. In short, our tails were inaccurate because we were now in an environment with prices outside of the range of any of our previous observations. As a result, we underestimated the effects of super high beef prices on calf prices (we found that packers and retailers were able to squeeze their margins) and we underestimated the extent that the industry was able to adapt to higher feed prices. Similarly, I wonder if we are doing that with our climate forecasts, and that the earth is far more adaptable to rapidly rising C02 levels than we think. I'm certainly not the first person to think about this, so my question is not whether scientist have considered the possibility, but rather how they have handled these types of possibilities in their models.

[Uncle Ted]

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.

If they time everything right we should have a year without a summer here in Texas (which would be very nice) and maybe even an extended football season.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That makes some sense. I don't know that I completely understand it, but I get it now better than I did, thanks.


The amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes wasn't my question. Rather, I'm wondering if part of the hockey-stick warming trend could be partly attributed to a resumption to a longer term warming trend that was interrupted by global cooling resulting from the two huge volcanic eruptions in the 19th century - kind of like a v-like gdp recovery after a recession. Perhaps that is too simplistic, but I'm kind of a simple minded person.

I don't believe so. That would be a fairly simple hypothesis to explore.

I was being somewhat facetious about CA being under water, but the warming does seem to have slowed considerably, and it seems that temps are much cooler than were predicted (I'm getting this information from an interesting WSJ article written by two former members of the IPCC.) An el nino event makes sense, but wouldn't that also be the reason for the extreme drought in the Southwest? It's my understanding that the drought in CA is currently a product of a 2,000 mile long ridge of high pressure that is pushing moisture north (and believe me, we've been getting it,) so the net effect precipitation effect is pretty close to normal. Is a high pressure ridge the product of global warming, or just a product of varying climatic conditions that are normal? Also, how much of the climate change that we are seeing can be attributed to variation from the sun, and how do we measure that? Sorry for all the questions, but I'm really curious about this.

Yes, the el nino event absolutely could be impacting our current drought cycle. Like I said above, you can't look at a single event and state definitively that it was a result of GW or other causes. You have to evaluate lots of events and look at global trends over time.

I'm not skeptical that the earth is warming or that we are in some way contributing to it, though the extent we are contributing to it I think is still a wild-ass guess. What I am skeptical about is how much the earth will warm, and what the effects will be. What it sounds like you were describing is a Monte Carlo simulation method to estimate warming and it's effects. This is where I'm ignorant, as a guy who has never taken calculus and only took basic stats. The problem I see with simulations in the modeling I do in our business, granted on a smaller scale as we are only dealing with cattle prices, is that the more variables there are, the wider the range of realistic possibilities. Also, a model is only as useful as the parameters are accurate. Given the virtually endless number of variables, and the fact that estimating many of these variables with any degree of accuracy (eg solar variation, atmospheric adaptability, etc.) the task of modeling the future climate seems overwhelming. Further, we're dealing with out-of-sample parameters for some of these things (the rate C02 is being emitted, etc.) which makes the problem even stickier.

My questions about the modeling come from personal experience. We modeled cattle prices in 2004 and had a highly accurate price forecasting model. We published our results and changed the way that ag economists had been forecasting calf prices for two decades (yes that's a straight brag.) Then in 2008, the energy policy changed and corn prices doubled. Prices had historically been dependent on corn prices, the higher corn was, the lower calf prices would be. At the same time, beef prices began setting new highs. Our model, incorporated these new prices, but we found that we were consistently undershooting the actual market. What we had not been able to incorporate into our model was the industry's ability to adapt, using ethanol byproducts to replace corn, keeping cattle on pasture longer, etc. and the magnitude of the effect of astronomically high beef prices on the price of calves. In short, our tails were inaccurate because we were now in an environment with prices outside of the range of any of our previous observations. As a result, we underestimated the effects of super high beef prices on calf prices (we found that packers and retailers were able to squeeze their margins) and we underestimated the extent that the industry was able to adapt to higher feed prices. Similarly, I wonder if we are doing that with our climate forecasts, and that the earth is far more adaptable to rapidly rising C02 levels than we think. I'm certainly not the first person to think about this, so my question is not whether scientist have considered the possibility, but rather how they have handled these types of possibilities in their models.

Yes, all models have uncertainty. One difference between climate models and financial models is that climate models are what we call physically-based models. The underlying equations are not based on regression or empirical relationships. Rather, they are based on simple physical formulas and relationships. Furthermore, we can test the models by taking historical inputs (over the past century or two for example) and feed them into the model and see how well the model performs in recreating the climate trends of the past (i.e. model calibration/validation). This then gives us an idea as to the relative accuracy of various models.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Good news, CMBF: there is a third alternative! This guys calculations could be wrong.

Didn't the guy lay out the arithmetic? Aren't you an engineer? Aren't you interested in being both pro-science and pro-geometry?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Didn't the guy lay out the arithmetic? Aren't you an engineer? Aren't you interested in being both pro-science and pro-geometry?

Ah... the old "argument from silence" strategy.

If I spend a few hours and whack your latest mole, will you promise never to pop up another mole? I doubt it.

[creekster]

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.

I am not unhappy with that study . I think it is typical. I haven't seen any of the consensus studies that assert anything more than some sort of binary formula; endorse/accept/report AGW vs. deny/not endorse/not report AGW. I don't think the 97% figure, which you and others use in this thread and elsewhere, can survive any other formula.

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.

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

yes science can estimate a lot. But the utility of the estimates is of some import and of limited value at this point.

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

My snark? Have you read the last few pages and seen how you, ER and others wielded the 97% figure like an incontrovertible intelligence test? I'm just following that lead and I probably shouldn't. I'm not ashamed about my past comments on tone, btw. Is this a shot birds flutter moment?

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.

It is a tough problem. And I don't think many people who are reasonable and thoughtful do have a lot of specific recommendations that are feasible. That is exactly the problem, I think.

[imanihonjin]

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.

Good grief.....are you still holding on to the belief that man is responsible for some global warming (we just don't know how much) = climate change is largely due to man? It's incredible that the difference between the two still escapes you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Good grief.....are you still holding on to the belief that man is responsible for some global warming (we just don't know how much) = climate change is largely due to man? It's incredible that the difference between the two still escapes you.

No, I am not. I don't think the first part of your equation is an accurate assessment of the state of the science.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am not unhappy with that study . I think it is typical. I haven't seen any of the consensus studies that assert anything more than some sort of binary formula; endorse/accept/report AGW vs. deny/not endorse/not report AGW. I don't think the 97% figure, which you and others use in this thread and elsewhere, can survive any other formula.

yes science can estimate a lot. But the utility of the estimates is of some import and of limited value at this point.

My snark? Have you read the last few pages and seen how you, ER and others wielded the 97% figure like an incontrovertible intelligence test? I'm just following that lead and I probably shouldn't. I'm not ashamed about my past comments on tone, btw. Is this a shot birds flutter moment?

Not at all. Just teasing you about your hypersensitivity (and occasional hypocrisy) on tone.

[imanihonjin]

No, I am not. I don't think the first part of your equation is an accurate assessment of the state of the science.

Yet you haven't produced a single "poll" that has suggested anything different. I have pointed out, as did creekster, that the 97% and your previous claim that almost all scientists believe that man is largely responsible for climate change say nothing of the sort....all they point out is that a large number of scientists believe that man has caused some global warming, however, they disagree on how much man has caused.

If you don't think it is an accurate assessment of the science, that is fine. However, being a man so steeped in science, feel free to back up your claim that almost all scientists believe that climate change is largely due to man (and try not use wiki links that merely link to articles stating that 97% of scientists believe that man is causing some global warming because finally you have admitted that that statement is not the same as 97% believe that man is largely responsible for climate change).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yet you haven't produced a single "poll" that has suggested anything different. I have pointed out, as did creekster, that the 97% and your previous claim that almost all scientists believe that man is largely responsible for climate change say nothing of the sort....all they point out is that a large number of scientists believe that man has caused some global warming, however, they disagree on how much man has caused.

If you don't think it is an accurate assessment of the science, that is fine. However, being a man so steeped in science, feel free to back up your claim that almost all scientists believe that climate change is largely due to man (and try not use wiki links that merely link to articles stating that 97% of scientists believe that man is causing some global warming because finally you have admitted that that statement is not the same as 97% believe that man is largely responsible for climate change).

No, I have referenced lots of other measures and indicators of consensus on both issues, but you seem to ignore them. I am not interesting in repeating this same argument over and over. Do you have a new point to make?

[creekster]

Not at all. Just teasing you about your hypersensitivity (and occasional hypocrisy) on tone.

hypersensitivity? I guess. I just want us all to get along.

[imanihonjin]

No, I have referenced lots of other measures and indicators of consensus on both issues, but you seem to ignore them. I am not interesting in repeating this same argument over and over. Do you have a new point to make?

See there you go walking it back again. You now say consensus when earlier in this very thread you stated that it was "almost all". Perhaps you have referenced lots of measures and indicators previously that support your almost all claim. However, in the last few days you have only referenced a wiki link to support your claim. I get it, you don't want to have the same argument over and over because you don't like having your BS pointed out. It really should be simple for a science guy in love with facts to either prove his stated claim that almost all scientists believe that climate change is largely caused by humans or simply admit that he was wrong.

[Jeff Lebowski]

See there you go walking it back again. You now say consensus when earlier in this very thread you stated that almost all. Perhaps you have referenced lots of measures and indicators previously that support your almost all claim. However, in the last few days you have only referenced a wiki link to support your claim. I get it, you don't want to have the same argument over and over because you don't like having your BS pointed out. It really should be simple for a science guy in love with facts to either prove his stated claim that almost all scientists believe that climate change is largely caused by humans or simply admit that he was wrong.

You got me. I hate having my BS exposed.