IGX

dead man walking wrote:sangria,

go over to real climate dot org to debate with scientists. go to grad school to get educated

You have no idea, do you?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Quick show of hands.

Who in this thread actually knows and/or talks regularly with actively working research scientists in any field, closely or even tangentially related?

I do but, more importantly, I have adequate physics, mathematics and numerical modeling background to understand what the science says. And what it doesn't.

Sua Sponte wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Quick show of hands.

Who in this thread actually knows and/or talks regularly with actively working research scientists in any field, closely or even tangentially related?

I do but, more importantly, I have adequate physics, mathematics and numerical modeling background to understand what the science says. And what it doesn't.

Do tell.

PhD. MIT. Physics and engineering.

Sua Sponte wrote:PhD. MIT. Physics and engineering.

Meh....No. IDC about the soup behind your name...I meant....Tell us your understanding of the current science. The IGX zeitgeist on this issue is somewhere between chemtrail conspiracies and a dead certainty the glaciers are encroaching on the central west right under MSNBC's nose.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Meh....No. IDC about the soup behind your name...I meant....Tell us your understanding of the current science. The IGX zeitgeist on this issue is somewhere between chemtrail conspiracies and a dead certainty the glaciers are encroaching on the central west right under MSNBC's nose.

If the credentials mean nothing then the opinion that comes with them should mean no more than those who opine across the breadth you cite. Which means you already have all the input you need.

That aside, and without writing a treatise, there are two matters and they often get conflated. To wit, what are the long term consequences of of the climate change that's ongoing and what is its source-man made, natural or a combination and in what degree. Taking for now just the former, the simplest synopsis is that the level of certainty proffered by some is not possible and therefore not scientific. Especially those who forecast a half century into the future. On the other hand, the models are good enough that they have some predictive ability. They don't fail in their entirety but as time evolves, so does their departure from observation.

For now, leaving aside also the issue of observation, how it's performed, inherent error and error propagation, some facts on modeling. The modeling isn't ab initio, which is to say it's not from first principles. Without knowing it, many make this assumption; the equations that describe non-linear fluid flow (Navier-Stokes) are satisfied everywhere with precision. They're not, as the solution isn't closed form, the boundary conditions are ill defined, the solutions are computed numerically not analytically and, most importantly, approximations are made as a matter of necessity. Hence, where respectable debates occur, it's around these approximations, on damping mechanisms, for instance. When nonlinear dynamics caught popular imagination, there was an equally popular meme about the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Rome changing the weather in New York. True, if damping weren't present. It is present and its effect and degree is what's debatable. Ideas like (positive and negative) feedback loops, their relative magnitude and known omissions of the models such as how clouds and their impact are at the heart of justifiable dissension from the consensus. The most fundamental science, the fluid dynamics, really isn't at issue, but these models within models do pose areas of reasonable debate. Richard Lindzen, one of the more notable detractors, points out that the models often qualitatively predict modeling outputs such as global temperature rise but miss the mark on the accuracy of the numbers. In a linear system, not such a big deal as input/output relationships scale. Halve the input, the output responds proportionately. In nonlinear systems, of which the atmosphere is a shining example, a change in the magnitude of the input may change the nature of the output entirely and, here's the rub, in non-intuitive ways. Halving the input may throw the system into oscillations where the full input resulted in a stable solution. As to the inputs, briefly, the five most used statistical distributions for data analysis are just approximations, they do not truly describe the system, the requirements placed upon their moment functions are almost never entirely fulfilled. This is another area where small changes may intuitively seem minor but in evidence are not.

Consider this the most basic of primers because, as I write this, I realize there's no way to get across the depth of the subject both in terms of the time and background required to grasp the quantitative part of the above qualitative examples. Not intended to be condescending, it's just that you have to take what's presented at face value, much similar to quantum effects described to the public. Long story short, believe the localized predictions for a decade or so, within margin. Thereafter, people are fooling themselves into a degree of certainty that is not obtainable.

As to what to do, know that the everything on the table as a solution will not stop the warming as projected, only delay it. Also realize there are tangible benefits to a warmer planet in the short run. The heart of the problem is that if you don't really know what the long term consequences are, what is a reasonable prophylactic now. Prudence is warranted, hysteria is not, at least to the degree that the model suggests actions that have no muster with people no matter how many bumper stickers they have to the contrary (they are, after all, still driving cars so how much do they truly believe or care...). Makes sense, a lot of sense, to minimize pollution with or without global warming all the same.

BD, if you care to get into some detail of this check out the debate around the hockey stick study. Supposedly it demonstrates that the current increase in average temperatures has been unprecedented - in spite of the previous records showing that it is not. They used tree rings from various places - the wider the ring the warmer the temperature that year has been.

There are two main problems with that study. First - statistical methods used. The methodology is very intricate, and I am under qualified to explain it. However it has been fiercely discussed, and to my knowledge many questions have not been answered. Second - the actual samples that have been used: they have been cherry picked, and those that didn't fit the model were rejected.

Hockey stick is the central point of the whole GW debate: if climate warmed up before then it is way less likely that current increase in temperatures is anthropogenic. And if this topic, the foundation for climate change, is full of giant holes - what is the credibility of evidence built on this?

Even if we leave the hockey stick alone the situation is weird, to say the least. This who disagree are labeled with various names, facts that contradict the main climate theory are not published or published at the back of magazines, supposedly independent IPCC consists of greenies and climate scientists who sign each others' publications and so on. Sure, this shit happens in any other science - the role of elevated cholesterol is an example of ignorance brought to the public - but it doesn't make climate science any more credible than dietology based on the outdated food pyramid.

And why there is no discussion of the benefits of raising temperature? It would make more sense to concentrate on maximising the positive effects of warmer climate than trying to counter it with means for which there is very dubious evidence, if at all.

Sua Sponte wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Meh....No. IDC about the soup behind your name...I meant....Tell us your understanding of the current science. The IGX zeitgeist on this issue is somewhere between chemtrail conspiracies and a dead certainty the glaciers are encroaching on the central west right under MSNBC's nose.

If the credentials mean nothing then the opinion that comes with them should mean no more than those who opine across the breadth you cite. Which means you already have all the input you need.

That aside, and without writing a treatise, there are two matters and they often get conflated. To wit, what are the long term consequences of of the climate change that's ongoing and what is its source-man made, natural or a combination and in what degree. Taking for now just the former, the simplest synopsis is that the level of certainty proffered by some is not possible and therefore not scientific. Especially those who forecast a half century into the future. On the other hand, the models are good enough that they have some predictive ability. They don't fail in their entirety but as time evolves, so does their departure from observation.

For now, leaving aside also the issue of observation, how it's performed, inherent error and error propagation, some facts on modeling. The modeling isn't ab initio, which is to say it's not from first principles. Without knowing it, many make this assumption; the equations that describe non-linear fluid flow (Navier-Stokes) are satisfied everywhere with precision. They're not, as the solution isn't closed form, the boundary conditions are ill defined, the solutions are computed numerically not analytically and, most importantly, approximations are made as a matter of necessity. Hence, where respectable debates occur, it's around these approximations, on damping mechanisms, for instance. When nonlinear dynamics caught popular imagination, there was an equally popular meme about the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Rome changing the weather in New York. True, if damping weren't present. It is present and its effect and degree is what's debatable. Ideas like (positive and negative) feedback loops, their relative magnitude and known omissions of the models such as how clouds and their impact are at the heart of justifiable dissension from the consensus. The most fundamental science, the fluid dynamics, really isn't at issue, but these models within models do pose areas of reasonable debate. Richard Lindzen, one of the more notable detractors, points out that the models often qualitatively predict modeling outputs such as global temperature rise but miss the mark on the accuracy of the numbers. In a linear system, not such a big deal as input/output relationships scale. Halve the input, the output responds proportionately. In nonlinear systems, of which the atmosphere is a shining example, a change in the magnitude of the input may change the nature of the output entirely and, here's the rub, in non-intuitive ways. Halving the input may throw the system into oscillations where the full input resulted in a stable solution. As to the inputs, briefly, the five most used statistical distributions for data analysis are just approximations, they do not truly describe the system, the requirements placed upon their moment functions are almost never entirely fulfilled. This is another area where small changes may intuitively seem minor but in evidence are not.

Consider this the most basic of primers because, as I write this, I realize there's no way to get across the depth of the subject both in terms of the time and background required to grasp the quantitative part of the above qualitative examples. Not intended to be condescending, it's just that you have to take what's presented at face value, much similar to quantum effects described to the public. Long story short, believe the localized predictions for a decade or so, within margin. Thereafter, people are fooling themselves into a degree of certainty that is not obtainable.

As to what to do, know that the everything on the table as a solution will not stop the warming as projected, only delay it. Also realize there are tangible benefits to a warmer planet in the short run. The heart of the problem is that if you don't really know what the long term consequences are, what is a reasonable prophylactic now. Prudence is warranted, hysteria is not, at least to the degree that the model suggests actions that have no muster with people no matter how many bumper stickers they have to the contrary (they are, after all, still driving cars so how much do they truly believe or care...). Makes sense, a lot of sense, to minimize pollution with or without global warming all the same.

I'm not impressed with credentials, I'm impressed with an analytical mind that has both the rigor of thought and the gift of expressing it clearly and simply. So..congrats on your PHD.

The discussions I've had have been with meteorologists and one Nuclear physicist...who I think like you understood the moving pieces well enough to have an opinion worth hearing. I've no dog in the fight, the folks I've talked to have made a compelling enough case, IDK what I really think about it other than, I suspect the public debate is horseshit and the real science is bounded on one hand with large certainties (system is changing...rapidly) and even larger uncertainties. (it's likely we can do nothing about it and we might indeed be totally wrong). I work neck deep in the realm of Policy...so I've no doubt this debate is being gamed for multiple interests...again. that changes nothing regarding the robustness of the science.

The thing about these conversations that are so deeply amusing is that they follow the very same pattern each time. I had the joy of spending time in the Emergency room this weekend to see a flood of experts, each one to took pains to point out what an idiot my Doctor was and how wrong the last PA/ND/PHD was that I spoke with was......in each case like clockwork, the tune changes as they get more information, data spills out, nuance of conversation adds detail until Doctor number 4 is one the phone with my Doctor discussing the case in measured less strident tones arriving precisely at the same conclusion as my GP I wonder how often that happens in this sort debate?

Now, no doubt, your critique of the state of the science is both nuanced and valid.

I hope your herpes clears

buckethead wrote:I hope your herpes clears

Cheeky bastard. You know it never leaves.

When they finally agreed on Herpes Opthalmicus as the diagnosis, I asked if I got it from looking at naked ladies. That got a laugh but no scrip for oxy....so fuck those guys.

Sangoma wrote:And why there is no discussion of the benefits of raising temperature? It would make more sense to concentrate on maximising the positive effects of warmer climate than trying to counter it with means for which there is very dubious evidence, if at all.

Supposing anthropogenic climate change is 100% true, everything I've read indicates that at best we can only mitigate it a bit via the various protocols the "warmers" are promoting.

I don't think I've seen more than 1/2 dozen articles on dealing with and managing the supposedly inevitable climate related changes we're expected to experience. Dealing with various and changing climates almost defines human evolution yet 99% of what I hear from the "warmers" is about trying to stop what they deem to be inevitable instead of dealing with it.

Focusing on the almost impossible while ignoring what you consider inevitable seems like a psychological disorder of some kind.

Sangoma wrote:BD, if you care to get into some detail of this check out the debate around the hockey stick study. Supposedly it demonstrates that the current increase in average temperatures has been unprecedented - in spite of the previous records showing that it is not. They used tree rings from various places - the wider the ring the warmer the temperature that year has been.

My ol' man always taught me that the wider the ring, the more rain had fallen that year. And he made through the eighth grade in rural Virginia. His credentials were, that he was the third smartest student in the third grade.(class of three).

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
I'm not impressed with credentials, I'm impressed with an analytical mind that has both the rigor of thought and the gift of expressing it clearly and simply. So..congrats on your PHD.

Hold on there big boy. If I'm gonna try and impress there has to be something in it for me. IGx doesn't have that sort of clout. I stated what I did to back up the assertion I had the background to assay the validity of the conclusions being averred, not to imply that my view was to be taken as the final word. While it's been order two decades since gaining the degree, making your congrats a bit belated, the thought is what counts and thank you sincerely and kindly for your gracious well wishing.

I don't think the debate at the scientific level is of the variety you describe with the MD's. The scientific debate is much more measured, with a predilection to jump to conclusions being decidedly frowned upon. In scientific circles, if you want to lose credibility, develop a reputation for presenting inchoate musings as fact. What's troublesome in the debate here is the politics; where the novitiate take a point of view and then present it as unassailable, demeaning respectable scientists on either side as charlatans and with politicians looking to apply dint of law to suppress naysayers of and ilk.

Then, by and large, you are correct. The extremes run from tin-foil hat conspiracies to "the OMG WTF LMAO they don't see how clear this is, I was soooo globally warmed yesterday I had to get new skorts-aren't they cute?!?!?!?!?!" crowd vote. The truth is, again, it's not that there's nothing here and it's all a hoax but it's also not like we know what will happen with certainty in decades to come, right on down to the destiny of Poo the Polar Bear, no matter who's making the claim on which side. There is indeed still room for real scientific debate but within the confines of verified data and the laws of physics and these last two are where the public debate goes sideways.

Sua Sponte wrote:Hold on there big boy. If I'm gonna try and impress there has to be something in it for me.

I'm not asking you to impress anyone, nor could you overtly do so, but to be honest, you're the first one to take a decent crack at the meat of the debate, so that is laudable.

I've been jaundiced by being first hand witness to the battle of scientific authorities (spanning from seismic and structuralist engineering experts to soil, fisheries, and wetlands biologists) in a litigious setting. Take them out of academia and I can most honestly attest, they act just as ridiculously as I've described the garden variety MD.

Ah yes, well, while science itself is arguably pure, scientists and engineers are subject to the same human foibles as are anybody else. Putting a person in a litigious enough environment and the thin veneer of society and civility is soon worn through. I have been involved in enough IP and employment law litigation as a part of my normal duties to have seen that. I speak of the how science is conducted in its natural habitat.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Sangoma wrote:And why there is no discussion of the benefits of raising temperature? It would make more sense to concentrate on maximising the positive effects of warmer climate than trying to counter it with means for which there is very dubious evidence, if at all.

Supposing anthropogenic climate change is 100% true, everything I've read indicates that at best we can only mitigate it a bit via the various protocols the "warmers" are promoting.

I don't think I've seen more than 1/2 dozen articles on dealing with and managing the supposedly inevitable climate related changes we're expected to experience. Dealing with various and changing climates almost defines human evolution yet 99% of what I hear from the "warmers" is about trying to stop what they deem to be inevitable instead of dealing with it.

Focusing on the almost impossible while ignoring what you consider inevitable seems like a psychological disorder of some kind.

Within the Navy, and in the urban planning community I get to listen to, the discussion is about dealing with it. They've moved past the "is it occurring" stage. So sea walls, setbacks, rezoning, new shipping routes, and human migration are all topics.

nafod wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Sangoma wrote:And why there is no discussion of the benefits of raising temperature? It would make more sense to concentrate on maximising the positive effects of warmer climate than trying to counter it with means for which there is very dubious evidence, if at all.

Supposing anthropogenic climate change is 100% true, everything I've read indicates that at best we can only mitigate it a bit via the various protocols the "warmers" are promoting.

I don't think I've seen more than 1/2 dozen articles on dealing with and managing the supposedly inevitable climate related changes we're expected to experience. Dealing with various and changing climates almost defines human evolution yet 99% of what I hear from the "warmers" is about trying to stop what they deem to be inevitable instead of dealing with it.

Focusing on the almost impossible while ignoring what you consider inevitable seems like a psychological disorder of some kind.

Within the Navy, and in the urban planning community I get to listen to, the discussion is about dealing with it. They've moved past the "is it occurring" stage. So sea walls, setbacks, rezoning, new shipping routes, and human migration are all topics.

If the science is as unsure as described...you'd be an idiot to PLAN for the upside when the downside is what's daunting.

nafod wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Sangoma wrote:And why there is no discussion of the benefits of raising temperature? It would make more sense to concentrate on maximising the positive effects of warmer climate than trying to counter it with means for which there is very dubious evidence, if at all.

Supposing anthropogenic climate change is 100% true, everything I've read indicates that at best we can only mitigate it a bit via the various protocols the "warmers" are promoting.

I don't think I've seen more than 1/2 dozen articles on dealing with and managing the supposedly inevitable climate related changes we're expected to experience. Dealing with various and changing climates almost defines human evolution yet 99% of what I hear from the "warmers" is about trying to stop what they deem to be inevitable instead of dealing with it.

Focusing on the almost impossible while ignoring what you consider inevitable seems like a psychological disorder of some kind.

Within the Navy, and in the urban planning community I get to listen to, the discussion is about dealing with it. They've moved past the "is it occurring" stage. So sea walls, setbacks, rezoning, new shipping routes, and human migration are all topics.

There's also a flip side. Risky behavior (living in areas with high risk of natural disasters-- ex. below sea level, along historical hurricane paths, historically poor precipitation levels, etc...) is expressly subsidized by government policy.

Sangoma wrote:BD, if you care to get into some detail of this check out the debate around the hockey stick study. Supposedly it demonstrates that the current increase in average temperatures has been unprecedented - in spite of the previous records showing that it is not. They used tree rings from various places - the wider the ring the warmer the temperature that year has been.

There are two main problems with that study. First - statistical methods used. The methodology is very intricate, and I am under qualified to explain it. However it has been fiercely discussed, and to my knowledge many questions have not been answered. Second - the actual samples that have been used: they have been cherry picked, and those that didn't fit the model were rejected.

Hockey stick is the central point of the whole GW debate: if climate warmed up before then it is way less likely that current increase in temperatures is anthropogenic. And if this topic, the foundation for climate change, is full of giant holes - what is the credibility of evidence built on this?

Even if we leave the hockey stick alone the situation is weird, to say the least. This who disagree are labeled with various names, facts that contradict the main climate theory are not published or published at the back of magazines, supposedly independent IPCC consists of greenies and climate scientists who sign each others' publications and so on. Sure, this shit happens in any other science - the role of elevated cholesterol is an example of ignorance brought to the public - but it doesn't make climate science any more credible than dietology based on the outdated food pyramid.

here is mann on the issue of the hockey stick a dozen years ago.

MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.
This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called “Detection and Attribution Studies”. Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases).

as for tree rings, statistical questions, and the exclusion of some critiques from refereed journals, these matters have been addressed multiple times.

no, i'm not going to dig around to find the rebuttals. i'll just keep an eye on the temperature and probably watch the ski industry around here collapse.

Turdacious wrote:
There's also a flip side. Risky behavior (living in areas with high risk of natural disasters-- ex. below sea level, along historical hurricane paths, historically poor precipitation levels, etc...) is expressly subsidized by government policy.

true. the subsidies distort "the market."

you are going to pay for it, for example, no matter whether it is a subsidy to renewable power or a subsidy to fossil fuel. policy battles are at their heart about who gets your money.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Sangoma wrote:And why there is no discussion of the benefits of raising temperature? It would make more sense to concentrate on maximising the positive effects of warmer climate than trying to counter it with means for which there is very dubious evidence, if at all.

Supposing anthropogenic climate change is 100% true, everything I've read indicates that at best we can only mitigate it a bit via the various protocols the "warmers" are promoting.

I don't think I've seen more than 1/2 dozen articles on dealing with and managing the supposedly inevitable climate related changes we're expected to experience. Dealing with various and changing climates almost defines human evolution yet 99% of what I hear from the "warmers" is about trying to stop what they deem to be inevitable instead of dealing with it.

Focusing on the almost impossible while ignoring what you consider inevitable seems like a psychological disorder of some kind.

Within the Navy, and in the urban planning community I get to listen to, the discussion is about dealing with it. They've moved past the "is it occurring" stage. So sea walls, setbacks, rezoning, new shipping routes, and human migration are all topics.

There's also a flip side. Risky behavior (living in areas with high risk of natural disasters-- ex. below sea level, along historical hurricane paths, historically poor precipitation levels, etc...) is expressly subsidized by government policy.

They recognize it, and to some extent are trying to unfarkle it. Seaside landowners (usually with $$$) are against it and fight it, pushing for beach replenishment and things like that. It basically takes a huge storm to set the new norm.

This is a great shot of beach replenishment. Interesting site I got it from: http://www.beachapedia.org/Main_Page

remind me who is paying for that.

the argument isn't about science really. it's about the economy--that is, money, and acknowledging the fact of man-made climate change and its consequences likely requires a different-looking economy. hence business manipulates it's elected puppets to stall.

dead man walking wrote:remind me who is paying for that.

The same people who pay for sports stadiums. Not all of this can, or should, be attributed to climate change.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
If the science is as unsure as described...you'd be an idiot to PLAN for the upside when the downside is what's daunting.

They are not planning for either. They are seemingly trying to prevent what's happening by means of dubious efficacy. So far there are only cries of the next impending doom.