Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[imanihonjin]

You got me. I hate having my BS exposed.

Man for being a science and fact lover, you sure do have an aversion to both. If, as you have previously stated, you have referenced lots of other measures and indicators that prove what you say, why don't you provide those previously mentioned measures and indicators?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Man for being a science and fact lover, you sure do have an aversion to both. If, as you have previously stated, you have referenced lots of other measures and indicators that prove what you say, why don't you provide those previously mentioned measures and indicators?

Yes. I hate science and facts. That should be clear by now.

[imanihonjin]

Yes. I hate science and facts. That should be clear by now.

Why do you continue to avoid the question?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Why do you continue to avoid the question?

Wait. I thought we just established the reasons.

[creekster]

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.

You know, I was going to let this pass, but I guess I can't let it go. In response to the analysis posted by CMBF you said a third alternative is that they guy's math "could" be wrong. But you never say it is wrong. That's a pretty important difference. So is it wrong? Either you know it is, in which case you could at least say so and at most show where/how it is wrong, or you don't know and you are being very unscientific in your casual dismissal of his rather specific critical response to the water level claim. I guess the obvious spots for error are in the formulas he assumes or in the actual calculations. I certainly don't expect you to run down the answers, but it would also be rather disingenuous to hold so tightly to the scientific method and then be completely unscientific in dismissing this argument by implying the math is wrong if you don't know of any actual error. So, is it wrong?



edit: I will add that I am not going to bother to look up the formulas to see if he used any that are incorrect and I don't expect anyone else to do so either. But I am also not going to suggest they are wrong unless I have some reason to think they are, in fact, wrong.

[imanihonjin]

Wait. I thought we just established the reasons.

I get it....you can't back it up so now you are avoiding. It is going to be really fun watching you in the future when you get back up on the science high-horse of yours.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Listen, this is a New York Times story that feeds into what I've been talking about -- ridiculous hysteria that undermines the science. I'm pretty sure this is 9th grade geometry along with a little bit of knowledge regarding the volume ratio between water and ice. We're talking about figuring out spherical volume and how much volume is increased by a quantity of ice that converts into liquid water. I'm pretty sure I could verify what this guy is talking about in 30 minutes and I'm not an engineer.

What's really hilarious to me is the fact that the guy arrives at the conclusion that this "alarming rate" of melting as reported by the NYT should produce around a 5.25 inch increase in sea levels over the next 86 years. Since the little ice age, the increase in sea levels has averaged 7 inches per century. Apparently, the underlying report regarding the melting is accurate, but the conclusion (3 feet in 86 years) is ridiculous.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You know, I was going to let this pass, but I guess I can't let it go. In response to the analysis posted by CMBF you said a third alternative is that they guy's math "could" be wrong. But you never say it is wrong. That's a pretty important difference.

Sure. But CMBF was stating one either has to be anti-science or anti-math based on this one post. A really simple solution to this (false) dichotomy is maybe this guy is wrong. Wouldn't you agree from a logical point of view?

So is it wrong? Either you know it is, in which case you could at least say so and at most show where/how it is wrong, or you don't know and you are being very unscientific in your casual dismissal of his rather specific critical response to the water level claim. I guess the obvious spots for error are in the formulas he assumes or in the actual calculations. I certainly don't expect you to run down the answers, but it would also be rather disingenuous to hold so tightly to the scientific method and then be completely unscientific in dismissing this argument by implying the math is wrong if you don't know of any actual error. So, is it wrong?

This is funny. You don't expect me to run down the answers, but if I don't I am guilty of being disingenuous. Nice.

Believe it or not, it would take quite a bit of time to double-check each of his calculations. And I don't know what assumptions were made and what calculations were performed by those who made this specific ice melt claim. From what little I read of the article, it was at least partly based on global climate simulations. Perhaps those simulations predict some sort of exponential increase in melt rates. Maybe he missed some basic factor in his analysis. That would take quite a bit of time and effort to track down what is going on and square it with this guy's analysis. No thanks.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Listen, this is a New York Times story that feeds into what I've been talking about -- ridiculous hysteria that undermines the science. I'm pretty sure this is 9th grade geometry along with a little bit of knowledge regarding the volume ratio between water and ice. We're talking about figuring out spherical volume and how much volume is increased by a quantity of ice that converts into liquid water. I'm pretty sure I could verify what this guy is talking about in 30 minutes and I'm not an engineer.

I will check back in 35 minutes. Go for it!

[creekster]

Sure. But CMBF was stating one either has to be anti-science or anti-math based on this one post. A really simple solution to this (false) dichotomy is maybe this guy is wrong. Wouldn't you agree from a logical point of view?



This is funny. You don't expect me to run down the answers, but if I don't I am guilty of being disingenuous. Nice.

Believe it or not, it would take quite a bit of time to double-check each of his calculations. And I don't know what assumptions were made and what calculations were performed by those who made this specific ice melt claim. From what little I read of the article, it was at least partly based on global climate simulations. Perhaps those simulations predict some sort of exponential increase in melt rates. Maybe he missed some basic factor in his analysis. That would take quite a bit of time and effort to track down what is going on and square it with this guy's analysis. No thanks.

Yes, that is a logical possibility.

I only said you were disingenuous if you are dismissing his conclusion on the basis that he is wrong if you don't have any basis to conclude he is wrong. That is very unscientific, wouldn't you agree?

If all you meant is that there was, as a matter of logic, a third possible alternative but you have no position on whether or not the guy was, in fact, wrong, then we have no dispute.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes, that is a logical possibility.

I only said you were disingenuous if you are dismissing his conclusion on the basis that he is wrong if you don't have any basis to conclude he is wrong. That is very unscientific, wouldn't you agree?

If all you meant is that there was, as a matter of logic, a third possible alternative but you have no position on whether or not the guy was, in fact, wrong, then we have no dispute.

This was my first response:

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

This is my second response.

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.

Do a google search on sea level rise and you will note that there have been hundreds of studies estimating a rise in the next century of anywhere from 20 - 100 cm. If this guy can debunk the work of thousands of people (millions of man-hours) with a back-of-the-envelope calculation, then more power to him. He should publish his work and become wildly famous.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Sure. But CMBF was stating one either has to be anti-science or anti-math based on this one post. A really simple solution to this (false) dichotomy is maybe this guy is wrong. Wouldn't you agree from a logical point of view?



This is funny. You don't expect me to run down the answers, but if I don't I am guilty of being disingenuous. Nice.

Believe it or not, it would take quite a bit of time to double-check each of his calculations. And I don't know what assumptions were made and what calculations were performed by those who made this specific ice melt claim. From what little I read of the article, it was at least partly based on global climate simulations. Perhaps those simulations predict some sort of exponential increase in melt rates. Maybe he missed some basic factor in his analysis. That would take quite a bit of time and effort to track down what is going on and square it with this guy's analysis. No thanks.

The variables were supplied by the NYT article and accepted at face value. The radius of the earth was set at 4000 for the analysis. He then assumed that 70% of the Earth was covered by water. The slight differences in what the actual radius is and what exact surface of the Earth covered by land are relatively immaterial to the overall conclusion which is there would have to be a shitload more melting going on than what these guys reported in the article to increase the sea level by 3.

The geometric formulas are what they are and easily verifiable. He just calculated how much volume of water would have to be introduced to produce a new radius of 4,002.1 miles vs 4,000 miles. The answer is 80,000 cubic miles of water spread over the sphere. The Times article states that 570 billion tons of water are melting from the glaciers per year. The weight of water can easily be transferred over to compute gallons and gallons can be converted to cubit feet and cubic miles in turn. Simply put, 570 billion tons of water does not equal the needed amount of cubic miles per year to produce a 3 foot elevated sea level by the end of the century.

Again, easily verifiable once the variables supplied by the NYT article is accepted at face value.

[pelagius]

I
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.

Leb, to be sure there are lots of problems with our models in financial economics. And I would never claim to be a scientist or an intellectual of any kind. That said, your description of the difference between financial models and models in the sciences isn't very fair. At least relative to the academic discipline of finance (which seems to be the fair analogue to science). In finance, our primarily modeling technique would be using the analogue to 'simple physical formulas and relationships' (of course, even though this is what we do our analogues are weaker and that certainly leads to crappier models). For example, the central unifying framework for financial economics is what we call the 'no arbitrage' condition. The most important models of the last 50 are basically derived from that condition.

Certainly, we create models in response to what we observe empirically. But that doesn't strike me as different than scientific fields (particularly not to the topic at hand). Also, I see no fundamental difference in our approach to calibration/validation (in fact, I think lots of fields benefit from economics' drive to create better tools for calibration/validation). One big difference between economics and science is that we try to 'infer causation without experimental manipulation' (and if you want to look down on us for that I do not mind). That said, in the global warming arena, the ability to engage in experimental manipulation is much more limitted than many other scientific subfields (that's not to suggest that model precision will be as bad as my field's precision).

All models are false: abstractions and simplifications. But, yes, models in the sciences tend be great, and model in economics tend to be crappy. But, it's not because our models somehow get created from a different underlying methodology/approach to modeling. Certainly people model things in the way you suggest, but that's not really a core part of the academic discipline.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Leb, to be sure lots of problems with our models in financial economics. And I would never claim to be a scientist or an intellectual of any kind. That said, your description of the difference between financial models and models in the sciences isn't very fair. At least relative to the academic discipline of finance (which seems to be the fair analogue to science). In finance, our primarily modeling technique would be using the analogue to 'simple physical formulas and relationships' (of course, even though this is what we do our analogues are weaker and that certainly leads to crappier models). For example, the central unifying framework for financial economics is what we call the 'no arbitrage' condition. The most important models of the last 50 are basically derived from that condition.

Certainly, we create models in response to what we observe empirically. But that doesn't strike me as different than scientific fields (particularly not to the topic at hand). Also, I see no fundamental difference in our approach to calibration/validation (in fact, I think lots of fields benefit from economics' drive to create better tools for calibration/validation). One big difference between economics and science is that we try to 'infer causation without experimental manipulation' (and if you want to look down on us for that I do not mind). That said, in the global warming arena, the ability to engage in experimental manipulation is much more limitted than many other scientific subfields (that's not suggest model precision will be as bad as my field's precision).

All models are false: abstractions and simplifications. But, yes, models in the sciences tend be great, and model in economics tend to be crappy. But, it's not because our models somehow get created from a different underlying methodology/approach to modeling. Certainly people model things in the way you suggest, but that's not really a core part of the academic discipline.

Great explanation. Thanks. Yeah, I figured that was probably an oversimplification.

And I don't look down on financial modeling! For starters, it is a far more lucrative field of work.

I love this line: "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

[creekster]

This was my first response:



This is my second response.



Do a google search on sea level rise and you will note that there have been hundreds of studies estimating a rise in the next century of anywhere from 20 - 100 cm. If this guy can debunk the work of thousands of people (millions of man-hours) with a back-of-the-envelope calculation, then more power to him. He should publish his work and become wildly famous.

20-100 centimeters?? that's about 7-40 inches. That's sort of a big spread, is not inconsistent on the low end with what the guy is saying and which goes right back to the other issues we were discussing. in fact, isn't that spread almost exactly the difference between that guy's argument and the calculation he is criticizing? Bottom line is that you don't have any basis to conclude he is wrong (other than his outlier status).

in fact I concede there are a lot of variables that could make a difference, and even I can think of a few. First, the earth is NOT a sphere and gravity and inertia affect the oceans' shape. Further, the amount of water surface area increases as the sea level rises, so that variable has to change progressively. And so forth. But still . . .