All posts in the topic Anthropogenic Global Warming (Short link)

Dec 02 18:13 UTC

Thanks for all the comments I've received on my previous email on this subject.

This one's pretty long and addresses some specific questions or
comments that were made on list.  For the most part, its probably not
worth reading.

I do want to make sure that people know that I am NOT a scientist, nor
have I been for many years.

This is what I am: I've got an undergraduate degree with a high GPA in
physics and did a summer internship at the Rhode Island Graduate
School of Oceanography - mainly testing software.  I started graduate
school at Brandeis but dropped out the first semester as my
undergraduate preparation gave me strong experimental skills but had
left me about a year behind my classmates in theoretical physics and I
became near suicidal trying to cram a years worth of string theory in
my head while taking classes that required that knowledge.
(Ironically, string theory, though the consensus at the time, has been
more or less dumped.)

Also, while I find this topic very interesting, this is likely to be
my last lengthy post on it due to time considerations.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Neal Krasnoff <nodeengineer@msn.com> wrote:
>> Science doesn't know the truth about the nature of reality.
>
> Thank you for proving the opponent's assertion.

*heh* I proved or disproved nothing.  I established what the nature of
evidence is from a scientific perspective and, in response to the
"opponent's" request, gave an example of a study which, while it does
not prove the nature of reality, provides evidence in support of a
theory.

Wherever the eventual scientific consensus ends up in supporting or
refuting anthropogenic climate change, it will still be a theory and
scientific consensus, not truth.

However, for those who believe that this means that the scientific
consensus and theory are somehow without merit, don't forget that this
was enough to put a man on the moon based on pretty much Newtonian
theory, split the atom based on atomic theory, and make a transistor
based on the theory of quantum tunneling.

The fact that scientific instruction does attempt to make sure
practitioners understand the fundamental difference between truth and
theory really makes it impressive when one contemplates the pioneer
astronauts.  We had a lot of good theories some of which had been
tested for centuries, and we tested the newer stuff the best we could,
but still, it had to be pretty wild.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Lee <lee@honeycomb.net> wrote:
> I have a few questions and you seem like you might
> be in a position to give honest answers or opinions.

With the questions you've brought up (which I'll answer shortly), I'm
reminded of two different historical cases:

* Cold Fusion - Just before I went to college, a couple scientists
claimed they'd discovered a means for cold fusion.  We learned about
it as the attempts to validate it or discredit it were progress, but
it was pretty widely thought to be bunk.  One of our profs thought it
might have merit, but most of them scoffed at it and used it as a
warning story that one should never publish to the media - always
start out with the peer reviews.

About the time I graduated, the DOE did a pretty substantial study of
all the claims made, attempted to reproduce them, and pretty much put
the final coffin nail in it.  Variations crop up every now and again,
and for the most part, the only thing they accomplish is cold
derision.  Many scientists believe its impossible and most of the rest
believe its not worth pursing.  Expressing your belief that its
possible is an easy way to get dismissed as a mental lightweight by
many scientists.  It definitely doesn't get much in the way of grants.

Even so, every so often, someone thinks they have a new angle on it
and know they'll achieve massive accolades if they're right and so
they try it.  They don't get as much money for it, but sooner or
later, if cold fusion _is_ a possibility, one of these people will
nail it.  The first time they come up with a study that holds up to
review, they'll get more money than they know what to do with.

So, sometimes that which challenges consensus is wrong.  (And, in the
computer world, one can actually make money with Cold Fusion although
I prefer other options.)

* Quantum Mechanics - I can't give a first hand account here, but
Quantum physics introduced many ideas that were pretty much heretical.
 The initial objections were metaphysical in nature - people thought
(many still think) that the universe is deterministic and the idea
that this science implied that it wasn't so much was pretty hard to
swallow.  The theories pretty much seemed to strike at the heart of
Newtonian mechanics which, up until relativity, was the best model of
reality we'd achieved.  At one point during the debates that ensued in
the scientific community over the next 50 years or so, even Einstein
ended up on the wrong side of eventual consensus with his statement
that "God does not play dice with the universe."

So, sometimes that which challenges consensus is right.  Another
interesting one was whether or not there was an Aether.

Now, on to the questions.  As I stated before, I've been out of the
scientific community for well over a decade so I can't really answer
them, but I can give my opinion on them as well as in some cases, on
the relevance of the question.

You'll note that I've got a pretty strong bias in favor of trusting
the scientific process.

> 1) How politicized has the science community become
> because of this issue?

This doesn't really matter.  In the short run, it may impact funding
of some studies over others and the enthusiasm over what is pursued,
but no matter what political stripe one has, if you spin the data, you
will be caught.

If something is "popular", it can be easier to get grants to study it,
but if a person has a whiff of a theory that seems sound, it'll get
tested.  Every doctoral candidate has to come up with _something_ for
their thesis after all and breaking new ground or shaking things up is
a great way to establish your reputation.

As far as I could tell, when I was in college, there were a wide
variety of political leanings which were pretty much left outside the
departments.  Sociologists and Psychologists and all those people in
the soft sciences were definitely noted as tending liberal, but the
hard sciences were generally considered above politics or culture.  A
bit of an egocentrism to be sure, but that was the case.  Reflecting,
I'd guess a general trend of conservatism with 30 - 40% of them having
some degree of social liberalism.  These were the teachers, the
students, if anything, tended more conservative.  I was certainly one
of the more "progressive" students in the department.  Keep in mind,
science departments are heavily recruited by most branches of the
military.  The number of religious folks might be of surprise to some
until you recall that science itself is based on some basic
assumptions of faith and for those that believe in a creator, what
better way to know that creator than to study and understand its
works?

Anyway, when I was involved with testing software models modeling El
Niño, I was certainly given no direction of what results I "should"
find.  Clearly the people running the program were hoping I'd prove it
worked or fix any small issues, but it would have been beyond
inappropriate for them to suggest I pretend it worked if it didn't.

If they had, and I had, and it had ever been found out, that's the
sort of thing that ruins a scientist's career.  Its understandable to
be wrong from time to time, but lying about data is a mortal sin in
the church of reason.

> 2) How much funding is invested in proving that global
> warming is anthropogenic and where is the money coming
> from?

If the experiments come out with good data and valid theories, it
doesn't matter where the money came from.  If the experiments don't
come out with valid theories, the only way that money's going to do
anything is if the sponsors spend it on marketing to lie and spin
about the results.  The only thing money thrown in the pursuit of
invalid theories accomplishes is getting students money to get through
school and paying the mortgages on some scientists' houses.  In
fairness, it would also generate some papers which would be shot down
relatively quickly.  One could certainly spin those papers in the
window of time before they were reviewed, but going public before
review is frowned upon.

For what its worth, trying prove a theory that turns out to incorrect
can often still provide data useful to those who come up with a
potentially valid theory.  Ethical and capable scientists will provide
useful information regardless of how what they were trying to prove
turned out.

As my advisor used to say, the only failed experiment is one in which
you learn nothing.

For what its worth, my personal assumption is that there is a fair
amount of money available to those who wish to study either side of
this issue.  There are plenty of people who want to prove that global
climate change has no anthropogenic roots.

Also, when considering if funds are being used to influence and
corrupt scientific results, I have to ask myself about what the motive
is.

What gain can be accomplished? Who stands to get that gain?  Would
they understand that the corruption would only stand for a relatively
short period of time?  Would whatever they had gained survive the
discovery of the manipulation?

I have a lot easier time imagining motive in trying to refute the
theory of anthropogenic climate change than I can in imagining a
motive in trying to support the theory.

QUESTION: For those who think there is a conspiracy/hoax/agenda, I'm
curious who you think the backers might be and what you think their
motives could be?

> 3) Is it true that there is chilling backlash against
> younger scientists who don't go along?

*heh*

For what its worth, there is a chilling backlash against many
scientists in pretty much any era or field when they strike out
against common consensus.

On the whole, scientists are in many ways a pretty conservative bunch
- If you spend years learning theories and how they interact and
honing your mind to understand and work with them, you'll develop a
natural reticence to shaking up that foundation.  It isn't that you
won't move, but you'll be reluctant and convincing you will be a high
bar.

I'd guess that well over 90% of the time, that conservatism is
warranted.  Most people who think they've figured out something
revolutionary and new are overeager and have made a mistake they've
overlooked or ignored.

Once in a while, they actually have figured out something
revolutionary and new.  In many cases, these scientists have enough of
an ego and enough confidence in their own analytical skills that if no
one is able to shoot holes in their actual work, they keep at it until
they succeed, until its proved false, or until they die.

Have I mentioned that, at least among physicists, alcoholism - or at
least, some degree of overindulgence - seems to be a surprisingly
common trait?

> 4) I've seen lists of hundreds of scientists who do not
> believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. What about them?

If they're doing research in the area and their beliefs end up being
supported by their data, they'll publish their work and that work will
be subjected to peer review and experimental duplication and
confirmation.

If it holds up to that, the consensus of the scientific community will
oscillate between the mutually exclusive theories or possibly hover on
the favored theory.  In either case,  more effort will be taken by
research teams and graduate students trying to validate or disprove
things.  Students will get their doctoral work done, grants will be
given and won, and conferences will be interesting.

Eventually one or both of the theories fail.  At that point,
scientific consensus will shift relatively rapidly.

However, if these scientists are out of their field and they're _not_
doing research in the area, then they're basically bystanders.  Not as
much as a bystander as you or I because they are able to review the
work with an educated eye if they're in a close enough field, but
still, bystanders.  If they aren't actively reviewing the studies,
their opinion isn't worth any more than mine is.

I've spoken a fair amount about "consensus" - that shouldn't be
confused with "democracy".  If 99 scientists believe theory A is valid
and 1 scientist believes that theory B is valid but, once reviewed,
theory A breaks and theory B does not, theory B wins, but it might
take a while.

Its like the apocryphal story of legislators trying to redefine PI as
3.  It doesn't matter how many people vote for it, its still not 3.

> 5) Do most of the more accredited studies assuming
> Anthropogenic Global Warming take into account natural
> shifts in temperature change that has occurred over the
> last several thousand years?

If a working model breaks when applied to pre-industrial cases, the
model is broken and the theory it was based upon isn't working.

If a model isn't well enough developed to be applied to pre-industrial
cases, it may be still valid, but it definitely needs more work and
research.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Mitch Berg <mitchpberg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By the way, the computer models that "predict" Anthropogenic Global
> Warming seem to be inconveniently unable to successfully "predict"
> weather in the past.  Might wanna take that into consideration.

I personally prefer "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change" as the
specific impact of changing conditions in a chaotic system can be
pretty up in the air until they aren't.  If I'm not mistaken, the
current theory is that a period of warming could disrupt certain
relatively stable systems which moderate climate and that the absence
of these stabilizers would then trigger a global ice age.

However, I've no idea if that's the latest best theory.

To me, the biggest question is "can human actions knock the global
climate out of its stable patterns putting us into a period of rapid
chaotic climate change?"

If the answer to this question has a statistically significant chance
of being anything other than "no", I think we need to be very careful
since, as a species that is highly dependent on agriculture which in
turn is highly dependent on a stable climate, it would be very stupid
to do that to ourselves.

There are two general philosophies when it comes to using a new
scientific discovery:

"Prove it is safe" - this is clearly impossible, but is the approach I
prefer.  Test, poke and prod it until any reasonable doubt as to the
safety of the thing is eliminated.  Yeah, you're not going to truly
prove it, but you should be able to largely eliminate doubt.

I'll note that this is a traditionally conservative philosophy which
we see more commonly applied in the social sphere.

or

"Prove it is dangerous" - this is more or less the approach that we
use in most areas other than medicine.

Anyway, to address your specific comment, as Darrell Gerber said:
> Weather is not climate. The global warming models don't even attempt
> to predict weather and vice versa. Two different things and two different
> models.

Yep.

Climate is a relatively stable long term cycle.  It provides the
backdrop on which weather occurs.  A model which predicts climate
change should be able to fairly accurately tell you how the range of
average temperatures and humidities, water heights, water and air
composition, precipitation, etc. is expected to change over a given
time period.

Weather is a highly chaotic short term phenomena.  Being chaotic, very
small differences in conditions can have dramatic impact on the
results.  Unless the model can take into account each and every one of
those small differences, it will not be able to tell you if a day next
year will be sunny or rainy - you're better off using amortization
charts if you're trying to gauge more than a handful or two of days
out.

And then, you've got fun things like El Niño where every 3 to 5 years
your range of weather patterns in a region shifts.

So, a good climate change model is the one that can give you the
regional temperature ranges and probable variations by season over the
years 2010 to 2015.  A good weather prediction model says that in St.
Paul on February 18, 2012, it will be sunny with a high of 62 and a
low of 15.

SO, whether a computer model works or doesn't work depends on what its
supposed to model.  If its modeling climatological data, that it can't
get a specific weather prediction for a storm or a temperature
wouldn't be considered a point of failure nor would it be considered,
as you said, "inconvenient".

Its no more inconvenient than the fact that my bicycle can't fly over
the river on my commute is inconvenient.  Yeah, it'd be WAY cool if it
could and it would certainly be convenient to be able to fly over the
river, but even though it can't do that, my bicycle's working fine.

And that's that for today!
(and probably some time to come - oi vey, this one got long)

- phædrus

All posts in the topic Anthropogenic Global Warming (Short link)

Add to the topic Anthropogenic Global Warming [?]