Global Warming Consensus -- Not man made!!

Here's some stuff to look at:

http://units.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2000/january/ajan00.cfm

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/06/climate-and-carbon-consensus-and-contention/

These are both very interesting and thoughtful discussions about the limitations that we currently face in modeling. Perhaps the most disturbing practice is the use of so called "fudge factors" in order to deal with processes like cloud formation.

A system like the climate cannot be deconstructed into its constituent elements, i.e. wind, ocean, land, etc and then "reconstructed". The subsystems all interact in such a way as to make it impossible to average the influence of one component and replace that in the model.

As an example, consider cloud formation. Clouds obviously strongly influence the weather and cloud formation patterns are crucial to the development of the climate. Current models are incapable of capturing the dynamics of the formation process because clouds form on a scale that is smaller than the grid size of the models.

That's just one example, many more abound.

a couple thoughts. i agree the earth is warming. i still dont know who these "no global warming people" are that liberal types keep attacking. point them out and i will mock them too.

as near as i can tell, everyone accepts that the earth is warming. the issue is are we causing it and can we do anything about it. on that i am skeptical.

i depose "experts" all the time in a wide variety of fields - medical, engineering, art, and even chiropractors. over the years i have grown very skeptical of what the experts tell us. i have deposed a self described "leading chiropractor" who said he could cure a childs bedwetting with proper manipulations, another who can cure acne, another who did not quite say it, but strongly implied he could prevent some types of cancer. i deposed an architect and engineer who offered their expert opinions that a church my client built was likely to collapse in "the very near future if not torn down and rebuilt" due to structural problems. That was over 10 years ago and the church still stands.

had we followed the experts advice we would have been taking steps to heat up the world to prevent the coming ice age i was taught about in 6th grade.

perhaps, just perhaps, you can find it in your heart to forgive me if i have developed a healthy skepticism for what the "experts" tell me.

sam,

There's a big difference between being skeptical of the clearly dubious claims of individuals (such as a chiropractor implying that he can prevent cancer via spinal manipulations) and having a blanket skepticism of all experts in their respective fields. The latter presupposes that you have at least as much expertise as a group of trained professionals in their chosen field, and that you can see errors that the expert group cannot, in spite of all of their training and experience and your neophyte status.

Healthy skepticism is a very good thing, but you haven't described that. Instead, you have described a sort of arrogant, anti-intellectualism. Is it any wonder that such arguments also commonly exhibit an undercurrent of conspiracy theories?

Regarding the lack of "no global warming people", if you really believe that then you haven't been looking too hard. There are plenty of people out there for you to mock. Heck, don't even bother looking at comments right here on letsrun, just look at Senator Inhofe who has stated clearly and unambiguously that the he believes that global warming (not just anthropogenic warming) is the greatest hoax perpetrated on the public. I find it mildly amusing that as new data has come in, the cry from some circles has changed from "There's no warming" to "OK, there's warming, but it's not caused by humans". The bottom line is the same in both cases, namely, a desire to not take responsibility to abate the problem. Doesn't it strike people as odd that some folks will now admit that there's warming but spend all of their time stamping and shouting about how it's not human-induced? If you recognize that it's real and that the consequences are negative, then your goal should be in reducing the effect. If you recognize that your house is on fire, your primary goal should be in putting out the blaze, not arguing over who started it.

400 scientists -

A) You don't understand what the word "consensus" means.

B) You don't understand the difference between a partisan-generated list of TV weathermen, economists, social scientists, computer programmers, etc. masquerading as climate change experts versus actual climate change specialists. (If your child was sick, would you take him to a PhD in chemistry or a medical doctor?)

C) You don't understand the Scientific Method - and therefore don't understand what it means when Inhofe's group of 400 are skewered through peer-review for errors, omissions, and cherry-picking in their analysis.

D) Luckily, you remind us that the flat earth mentality never dies, that it's a constant in our human society. It doesn't matter to you that everything you take for granted in the modern world - internet message boards comes to mind - are the product of the scientific method. Since you don't understand that method, you figure it's only right when you agree with its conclusions and outcomes ... and that it's a conspiracy of thousands of scientists when its results challenge your belief system.

E) Skeptism is healthy. But you appear to reserve your skeptism for the vast majority of the scientific community, while showing none for clowns like Inhofe and his group of 400.

F - for finally) Don't worry. The rest of us won't let the world burn while you fiddle.

dmb wrote:

I don't know if I went overboard or just explained myself poorly about federal funding. I'm not saying all federally funded research is biased, I'm just trying to show that at times it is a much more subjective process than people think. I think if people saw how the decisions are made they would be shocked.

I have served on many NSF review panels. Every time I do, I am astonished by the depth, breadth and conscientiousness of the process. You're right that most people would be shocked: they'd be shocked by the amount of work that goes into making the process rigorous, thorough and as fair as possible.

dmb,

You've really taken my comments far afield. I was responding to those on this thread who claim that the university-based pro-global warming science is untrustworthy because it is biased by the grant process, in the same way that non-peer-reviewed science is biased by the corporations who fund it. Of course, priorities develop and money flows to politically relevant topics. This is a far cry from scientists skewing their results. I'll ask again--point out some peer-reviewed studies that have been fudged to pursue this mountain of funding money.

I was also responding to those that doubt the very notion that global warming is real and a problem; I was NOT suggesting that the future consequences are clear. Of course there is disagreement about the magnitude of the consequences of global warming. Are you saying that there is no global warming at all? Are you saying that human activity did not cause global warming? Are you saying that tenured scientists are fudging their research? Are you saying that, because there is not consensus on the models, then no current action is desirable? If not, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

dmb wrote:

Finally, I wish all of the people that take issue with me would realize that I am not saying that there's absolutely nothing to be concerned about. I just think that there's room for debate and we should have a much better handle on the underlying science before we try to predict the future.

First, this reasonable statement is not what you've been saying in this thread. Maybe it's what you believe, but it's not what you've been writing. And second, why should anyone extend you a courtesy you refuse to grant anyone else? You continually misrepresent what others here are arguing. Even in the above paragraph, when you are complaining that people aren't understanding you in your full complexity, you posit adversaries who somehow think it's not necessary to understand the science and who think we can perfectly predict the future.

Maybe dmb is skeptical because of research like this:

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/2007_Dougless_etal.pdf

Several scientists including John Christy (a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report) tested 22 climate models used to predict the changes being trumpeted. They found that the models could not "predict" the temperatures of past data. In some cases it wasn't just a problem of magnitude, some models predicted warming when in reality cooling ocurred!

How is it wise to create political and economic policy based on models of such dubious reliability?

You are in such a hurry to disagree with people that you didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said *IF* 99.9999 of scientists agree about *SOMETHING* (I didn't say global warming) there will always be people who will say something to the effect of : ' well, even though there is near scientific consensus on this topic, there has been a near-consensus on topics in the past, and nearly everyone was wrong on some of those occasions, therefore, they could be wrong again.' I was pointing out that people with a bias against some accepted scientific opinion will use the "science isn't perfect" argument to refute science, and that is rather silly. Sure it is true, because no one ever said the scientific community is perfect. Maybe we are not up to 99% of the EXPERTS (not just any scientists, I mean the experts) agreeing on global warming yet(we are close though). However, I guarantee you that when we are there, there will still be plenty of people vehemently denying that consensus mainly based on the "science isn't perfect" argument. I will go with the consensus every time unless I am an expert who truly understands the topic better than almost anyone, and can make an extremely good argument why the consensus is wrong, not just pluck quotes off the internet because I like the sound of them.

I think it is more the other way around: most of the anti-global warming/anti-man-influenced-global warming crowd IS anti-science and simply anti-liberals. A lot of them don't like the whole global warming argument simply because of their political ideology, plain and simple. They don't like Al Gore, they don't like politicians trying to mandate rules to industry, they don't like politicians trying to encourage americans to drive fuel efficient cars via rules/tax breaks, and they don't particularly like science. THAT is why they are anti-global warming. It has nothing to do with honest scientific debate or skepticism and EVERYthing to do with their ideology and their politics. And THEY are the ones that name-call when their side starts "losing" the debate.

pretty much sums up the whole argument against making policy based on these models for me...

I agree with you - the NSF panel process is much better than say, DOE. It is a tremendous amount of work and I'm glad I did it.

Last spring I served on a DOE panel for Solar Research. It was my first for DOE and I was a little put off by the process. I felt like the program director had some pet projects that he tried to push, and sure enough those got funded but were not as highly ranked as others that the panel liked but did not get funded. I came out of there feeling like I wasted my time.

I saw a lot of questionable ethical behavior with respect to funding when I worked at a national lab. Lots of drinking between funding managers and applicants and inappropriate

chumminess. I'm talking about DARPA and other defense funding agencies.

So I'm not saying that every scientist or every program manager is like this, but in my relatively short career, I've seen enough to know that the process of obtaining federal funding for a research project is not as high minded as most here seem to believe.

yeah, so I guess that stuff about simplistic drivel wasn't you name calling...

If Al Gore and Michael Moore really had the truth on their side, they wouldn't have to lie. I contend that it is they who are the purveyors of simplistic drivel (albeit demagoguery) and people like you eat it lock, stock, and barrel.

dmb wrote:

pretty much sums up the whole argument against making policy based on these models for me...

What your argument ignores completely is that most of the data on climate change and its consequences have nothing to do with models. Glaciers are melting at astonishing rates. The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than anyone foresaw. Sea ice loss has occurred at a mind boggling rate. Migration routes and times are changing. Alpine species and habitats are being lost. Patterns of snow accumulation and spring run-off are changing in ways with HUGE implications for water use and wildfires in the western states.

CO2 levels are substantially higher now than they were in any of the interglacial periods in the last 800,000 years. The exponential rise of atmospheric CO2 (above the natural maximum for the last million years, 280 ppm) coincides exactly with exponential rise in CO2 emissions with the industrial revolution, and direct calculations of emissions match the observed change in atmospheric CO2. Short term changes in the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 coincide with major changes in the global economy, such as the collapse of the communist economies in eastern Europe, and the rise of India and China.

None of the above results are based in any way on any model. They are all direct, empirical observations of environmental responses to climate change that has been far faster than anything we know of in the past.

Even if forecast models did not exist at all, I have seen enough hard data to care about the consequences for my 10 and 12 year old daughters. If I can help by reducing my energy usage, then I am going to do it. It doesn't take much effort anyway, and it saves me money. If you choose to use your energy and brain to advance arguments that we shouldn't have to inconvenience ourselves, that is your right. I wonder what you will think about your arguments 50 years from now, especially if you have kids.

It seems like you're responding to things I haven't said. I have never denied that the observational data is compelling. Saying what it means is quite another thing. Proving that it is anthropogenic is also far from certain.

I would like to see a Manhattan style project convened on this issue. Not because I think that we're on the brink of Armageddon, but because I believe that research is fundamentally good and I believe the ancillary benefits will be enormous.

My argument is against crippling our economy, not "inconvenience." I'm glad you're reducing your energy usage. so have I. At the moment, I view energy as more of a security issue and I would like to see us develop alternative and renewable sources of energy as part of the national research project described above.

So pardon me if I don't want to form policy based upon a model that is fundamentally flawed and has to be fudged to make it work.

dmb wrote:

I would like to see a Manhattan style project convened on this issue. Not because I think that we're on the brink of Armageddon, but because I believe that research is fundamentally good and I believe the ancillary benefits will be enormous.

I don't think you would. Because immediately all the same criticisms launched against the vast majority of scientists that believe in global warming would be used to attack the findings of the new-Manhattan-style project. Because there would still be such a strong financial incentive to sow doubt and confusion.

Do you honestly believe that if there weren't very deep pockets with a vested interest in debunking global warming that there would be any debate (scientific or otherwise)?

Saw grass sounds cute - but after driving across ND, SD, IA and NE last summer - I did not see mile after mile of sawgrass fields - so, for at least the next 5 years sawgrass is not on the radar, even remotely. 5 years, minimum would be needed simply to make enough seed to begin widespread planting.

flashback wrote:

That is true with regard to corn-based ethanol, which is popular only becuase of early presidential primaries in Iowa, but ethanol made from sawgrass is much more efficient in terms of a carbon-footprint so ethanol, in general, can be a viable path to a more sustainable alternative.

This is what happens when you make it politically incorrect to slam the morons who are denying science. In the name of religious tolerance we have to respect people's right to deny evolution, and now we've got people running around thinking it's OK to make up their own bullshit in spite of established scientific knowledge.

These people are at least as despicable as holocaust deniers. I don't want to infringe on their freedom of speech, but I want reasonable people to be allowed - make that obligated - to call these deranged idiots what they are.

As long as conservatives harbor in their midst folks who insist that evolution is some big hoax and work from their playbook - evoke "elitism" every time somebody knows something oyou don't know and can't understand - I don't think they can be trusted as unbiased sources on matters of going against scientific consensus and peer review. Especially when these folks insist that revelations to first century rubes are relevant ways of knowing.

HighPlainsDrifter wrote:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

I find it funny how a conservative would take a quote meant as a slam on religious conservatives to apply to any instance where scientists identify a solveable problem.

Why don't you scoffers just stick to the idea that global warming is occurring (as it is), is caused by humans (as it is) but won't be that big a deal (as it might not be) aside for some peripheral relocations and "natural disaster" scale deaths. I am totally open to arguments that doing something about it may be more costly (and relatively ineffective) for the good it will do. But the science is in. You can't argue against the factualness of something just based on what you think it has to imply.