1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

National Geographic "The War On Science"

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by bwilson4web, Mar 1, 2015.

  1. Zythryn

    Zythryn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    6,153
    4,144
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    N/A
    I would put you in the denialists camp simply because you continue to use logical fallacies to try to deny AGW.
    The base science behind it in no way depends upon climate models.
    Predictions are based upon models, but not only models. We can look at warmer and cooler areas of the earth and draw predictions from that.
    We know that a warmer atmosphere is capable of holding more moisture. We then try to figure out what the effects of that will be.

    We have measured the temperature at higher latitudes is warming more rapidly. We also know the jet stream's engine is that very temperature difference. We don't know exactly what the results of lessening that temperature difference, we don't know exactly how it will bend and twist.
    We do know that those winds are slowing down. What will the results of that be?

    Yes, weather and climate are inexorably linked, but they are not the same thing.
     
  2. wxman

    wxman Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    619
    224
    0
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Huh? Please explain.
     
  3. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    Wxman,
    Let me conclude my participation in this thread by saying that if you told me that the weather models attempting to predict the time, frequency, and locality of extreme weather events due to Climate change were very uncertain, I would have little doubt you know what you are talking about.
     
  4. wxman

    wxman Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    619
    224
    0
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I'm not "denying" AGW. I've already stated that I accept that the global climate is generally warming and that some/most is anthropogenic. IMHO, we are conducting a vast empirical study of what happens to the climate when GHG concentrations are increased. I stand by my opinion that climate models can't reliably shed any light on that.

    You can't draw any conclusions from that. Warm air can hold more moisture, but doesn't necessarily. The ambient temps in Las Vegas in May are plenty warm enough (upper 80s?), but the dew points are often in the single digits or teens.

    Furthermore, precipitation, if that is what you are implying, is dependent on atmospheric lift. Without lift, you will get little or no precip regardless of how much moisture is in the troposphere.

    Exactly!

    Totally agree.
     
  5. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    Way to waffle. Doesn't that mean more than zero and less than 100% ?
     
  6. wxman

    wxman Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    619
    224
    0
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Source: IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), Chapter 9, Page 806
     
  7. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    it is like with shooting: how many % of it pressing trigger and how many % of it chemical reaction? and what about pointing %?

    That aside wxman's statement is correct, b/c while changes are anthropogenic, we are not changing climate directly. We are merely setting off avalanche.
     
  8. Zythryn

    Zythryn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    6,153
    4,144
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    N/A
    Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

    Two questions for you:

    Do you agree it is easier to forcast the average temperature over a year, than what it will be in two days?

    If your forecasts for severe weather is for thunderstorms with lots of cloud to ground lightning, isolated hail and high winds, do you suggest people take shelter?
     
  9. wxman

    wxman Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    619
    224
    0
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    For a specific forecast point? If so, not necessarily.

    Yes, which is a primary function of the NWS.

    Since my opinions on atmospheric models are being dismissed out-of-hand, here are some supporting data for my climate model "denialism", all from IPCC AR5, Chapter 9...


    (Page 769)

    (Page 771)

    (Page 824)
     
  10. Zythryn

    Zythryn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    6,153
    4,144
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    N/A
    So even though you can't predict the exact size of the hail, or the specific spots that will be struck by lightning, or which houses will be damaged by winds, you are taking steps to mitigate damage?

    Why require such a high level of specificity with regards to AGW before taking steps to mitigate the damage?
     
  11. wxman

    wxman Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    619
    224
    0
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I never said we shouldn't be taking mitigation measures for AGW. Actually, there have been times when I personally paid higher prices for B20 biodiesel when regular petro diesel was readily available.

    Also, not every time the Storms Prediction Center (SPC) issues a severe weather watch or tornado watch does severe wx occur in that watch box.
     
    #31 wxman, Mar 2, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2015
  12. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,590
    11,212
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Or simply check current warming trends to the various models. Which is at the low end of the range predicted by the models.
     
    wxman likes this.
  13. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,972
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Given the current spread of opinions concerning potentially negative effects of anthropogenic climate change (especially among decision makers), I would suggest that we are now mitigating and adapting as fast as can be realistically expected.

    Sure, it may be seen as foot dragging in retrospect, but retrospectives on human collective action have often not looked optimal.

    A sudden shift that is too clearly linked to ACC to deny, would move the needles. Then we'd reconfigure to making money more from renewables than from fossil C combustion. Whether it will happen benignly or in a damaging way remains beyond current prediction capabilities. My opinion.

    To Zythryn's "how sure to we need to be?", my response is surer than we are now.

    For me, a big difference between weather and climate modeling is that the latter need to include things with long time constants. Damn oceans. Until we figure out how they caused cooling decades during the 20th century, we won't know if they can do it again in the 21st. I suppose that they are now getting overwhelmed by infrared trapping, but I sure can't prove it.

    Not a war on science. We all love science (um, in our own particular ways). It is a war on paying for externalities that are difficult to quantify. And that is not a new thing. It is Human Nature. Or tribalness, if you like.
     
  14. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    I hate to see 'dueling' models but they sure look like two of the seven Indian blind men and the elephant:
    • meteorology models - work well within the boundaries of chaotic events, the random 'noise' (i.e., after butterfly wings) to give us confidence about whether or not we'll need an umbrella to come h ome when we leave for work.
    • climate models - the macroscopic view on the other side of chaotic events, (i.e., if the butterfly habitat will survive.)
    But I'm seeing advances from both models towards the other. In particular:
    Ok, so the last one is a self-admitted, incomplete model claiming to be CO{2} only. So reflective snow and clouds are omitted as well as their loss along with volcanic aerosols. However, this 'skeptic' model has another more severe flaw. I could not find anything showing it is based on commonly accepted math, physics and engineering data. They just dreamed up the claimed formula and offered them as 'because we say it is so'.

    So why did I offer a real weather model upgraded, a more powerful computer, and a faux-model from well known skeptics?

    It illustrates important elements of the scientific method. Weather models are reaching into the chaotic future with more powerful computers. Meanwhile, even the worst skeptics are like tobacco companies trying to claim 'their model' should be used but once published, becomes subject to individual scrutiny . . . like mine or even your eyes.

    It does no good to criticize a model without looking inside to find the flaw(s). But why are there multiple models? Why were there seven blind Indian men and the elephant? Because each independently worked out their analysis of the problem, the elephant, and the climate and weather are two ends of the elephant in the room.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #34 bwilson4web, Mar 2, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2015
  15. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Most of the weather predictions from past IPCC have been based on grey literature and climate models, not empirical science. In fact most of the predictions have been dead on wrong in the short term. The data for anthropogenic climate change supports the theory. On the other hand Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is a theory, and most of the data - evidence - has lined up against the catastrophic predictions.

    What can we say from the peer reviewed papers? Hurricane intensity may increase, but only by a tiny amount that is not likely to change damage. Severe Hurricane frequency looks like it may actually decrease but the storms may move. Tornado activity seems to have little to do with carbon dioxide. Sea levels are rising increasing storm surge and damage. The last 2 interglacials had much higher sea levels with lower levels of carbon dioxide. There are also tipping points in the paleo record. Both of these statements have nothing to do with man. Therefore it goes against science to claim that if man stops anthropogenic sources of green house gases, that sea levels will stop or decline.

    Now the term denier is a political one and not a scientific one. I don't mind if its used against some one like imhofe, whose belief against climate change is all about his belief in god. It is wrong to use when someone is skeptical that man's burning of fossil fuels is catastrophic. That view is more supported by the science than those of the name callers.

    Now in my honest opinion (IMHO) although most current evidence is against CAGW, we can not totally reject the theory. There simply is not enough data. Therefore simply because costs are so high if it is true, governments should take steps to reduce both deforestation and green house gas generation. This is simply good insurance. But like any insurance policy costs and benefits should be weighed, and when we look at the failed congressional tax and cap plan it failed for good reason. Even Hansen the biggest proponent of CAGW theory was against the plan, because it did so little and cost so much. Let's look at better plans like oil taxes and coal taxes that decrease other taxes (Hansen is a proponent of this) instead of taxing everyone and giving it to big utilities like duke without greatly decreasing emissions. Again this is politics not science, but the congress under pelosi was about taxing people and sending the money to large corporations without much good. Enron was one of the biggest proponents of cap and tax because they would have gotten a lot of money. I would be in favor of a good cap and trade program like we have with sulfer dioxide at coal powerplants, but not the crap that came out of congress. Now over 50 years ago the army corps of engineers wanted to build a sea wall to protect New York from storm surges. It was rejected as being too expensive, but it would have reduced the damage from the last storm many times the cost. High sea levels were here before climate change was even an accepted theory.
     
    wxman likes this.
  16. Robert Holt

    Robert Holt Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    1,313
    888
    0
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    IIRC, Georgia legislature passed a law making Pi = 3.0 rather than the true irrational value , so that the Georgia school children could more easily complete their math and geometry homework. I would hate to fly in a commercial aircraft designed by the Georgia state legislature!
    (The law was later repealed.)
     
  17. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    I remember Indiana, but I may well be wrong.

    Much more recent, however, is li'l Bush and his Evangelicals who were way on their way to Executive office policy that required that "science serve the public," which was Christo-Repuke speak for turning science into propaganda molded to the idiot at the helm
     
  18. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Looking for something else, I stumbled across this: Why People "Fly from Facts" - Scientific American

    Certainly conforming to the tribe has a lot to do with how people behave. This article goes into more detail about how individuals deal with the conflict between their faith vs. facts-and-data. More than I have time to deal with this morning, it is an interesting read because it gives clues about posting behavior.

    Bob Wilson
     
    Robert Holt likes this.
  19. tpenny67

    tpenny67 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2014
    464
    402
    0
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    Vehicle:
    2014 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    I think the basic problem here is that for people who aren't climate or weather experts (like me), it's hard to judge the qualifications and competency of somebody who is making statements contrary to the current scientific consensus. Therefore, it's somewhat pointless to try to directly convince me and SageBrush that the climate models are wrong. Rather, somebody needs to change the consensus of the climate scientists, and then those of us that put our "faith" in science will follow.

    That said, discussions like this are still useful as they help calibrate my personal BS detector so that the amount of faith I put in science is appropriate, as science has historically done a poor job of expressing the limits of the knowledge behind their consensus.
     
  20. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Do you have any refs? b/c similar internet hoax was going around about Alabama.
    According to this snopes.com: Redefinition of Pi bill passed house in Indiana, but failed Senate
    Indiana Pi Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia