It's been a bad week for Believers

Albert Einstein "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

 

^^ You just on keep trumpeting the 'earth is flat' stance -- I'm sure the experiment you need is just around the corner

 

AG confuses FUD with intellectual skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry of any quality requires a rational basis, which is what denialists lack.

 

Mojo: "No amount of data can ever prove me wrong; a single statement by a guy who hasn't collected data can prove me right."

 

We need a :snicker: icon

 

It is more spherical than anything else people would have no trouble describing as spherical. There are few things known to be more spherical in all the universe.

 

Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny all have round heads, wait, scratch Kenny, he was just killed!
You bastards!

 

this reminds of the time when my father in law told my kids that smoking never hurt anyone.


disclaimer: i am not an green freak, but i can see climate changes with my own eyes and feel them on my skin.

 

My problem is that there is a lot of newly published material and it is quite hard to assimilate. This is in terrestrial carbon processes. It's getting worse, because the microbial geneticists keep inventing new sequencing gadgets. Technology explosion, which I can scarcely claim to understand in full.

Overall, if one can manage to scan the tables of contents of about 100 journals, and guess from the titles which ones to read, you may have a chance to keep up.

But that is one field; climate science/paleo/modeling is quite another. There I don't stand a chance of complete comprehension. There are probably fewer journals that need tracking, I'd say not more than 30. On the other hand, the article production rate is as high or higher, and a lot of them (that I've looked at) are tough sledding to understand.

Eurekalert, sciencedaily, alphagallileo and I guess a few other 'distilling' websites will show you some fraction of the new pubs., but you are using somebody else's decision of what is important to note. Always better to go to the journals yourself. But then there is the time thing...

Meanwhile, I have no doubt that the subset of new pubs that can be seen as 'knicking' the edifice (dare I call it that?) of anthropog. climate change get wide internet coverage. Thus it will be no work at all to accumulate them; some folks/websites appear to take it as their life's work.

Which of course is their privilege. As mine is to be cheeky. Cept I didn't think I really was.

All of these studies, in some way or another, will improve our understanding of the earth system. It is great stuff to know, especially when one or more of the myriad interconnected things begins to go a tiny bit wrong.

So on with the sciencey stuff. To those who might speak out against learning, studying, knowing; thus in favor of willful ignorance, to those I might just get a tiny bit cheeky.

 

I think we at least had some chemists in that group.

 

Back on topic, there is way, way less to this story about the physicist than the original post would let you know.

What is the American Physical Society? Why did they issue a statement on global warming? What did the statement actually say, that this physicist disagreed with? Answer those questions and you'll see that there isn't much to this story.

APS website is here:
About APS

By their own description, this is not a scientific society for professional physicists only. It is a membership-based advocacy organization, with nearly 50,000 members, including 17,000 students. They take advocacy positions across a wide range of topics.

Their numerous position statements across a wide range of issues are here, everything from creationism to perpetual motion machines.
APS Statements

The physicist objected to the word "incontrovertible" in the statement on global warming. What, exactly, did the policy statement say was incontrovertible. I quote:

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."

The statement goes on to discuss the uncertainties in modeling everything else, and to highlight their use of "incontrovertible" as it describes the evidence that the earth has, in fact, warmed. They used the term advisedly.

So what this physicist was objecting to is the statement that we know, with certainty, that the earth is warmer now than in the recent past. There was no statement about anything else being incontrovertible, just that.

To sum up. This was a story about a Nobel-winning physicist protesting a statement:

• Made four years ago.
• By a membership-based advocacy organization that is open to all.
• Regarding the notion that we are sure the earth is warming.

The bottom line is that this wasn't even interesting denialism. This wasn't some heroic dissenting view that might help improve knowledge. This guy didn't even make it out of denialism 101. What he specifically objected to is the notion that we are sure the earth has warmed up. That's not good science, that's just being ill-informed about the topic.

EDIT: So, if the APS has 50,000 members, and 49,999 did not quit in protest over that statement, doesn't that provide useful information?

 

Not quite sure but that nonscientific attitude seems to be on both sides of the debate. I think Mojo has said he is a democrat that believes in global warming.

Its an oblique spheroid that lacks that perfection of a platonic sphere. The real dogma here was Aristotle's "proving" that the earth is fixed and planets rotate on perfect spheres.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html

The question is really how much we want to suspend scientific method for belief in a relativelly new theory . Why decide science should give a false sense of consensus and name call those that don't agree.

 

This thread started out by suspending the scientific method to CONDEMN a relatively new theory, not advocate it. Saying "poppycock!" and pointing to the impressive set of letters behind one's name are not part of the scientific method.

 

Well, I certainly didn't read the complaint to the APS as condemning the theory, only poking away the charade of certainty. Now the OP here may have been doing that, and I definitely do not advocate that point of view.

Now other than those 3 letters, the letter writer, or as some have described here as the denier, has been honored by the aps, and has that little nobel prize for actually discovering some things that people thought were impossible. Not that I would bow to that authority of discovering something new. Einstein after inventing quantum mechanics kept on trying to poke holes in the completeness of the new statistical methods.

But in the scheme of things the best place to bow outside of authority and is Aristotle laws of heavanly bodies. Obervational evidence did not get rid of the bodies traveling on spheres, then just resulted in a complex group that correctly predicted motion. This model was accepted for over a thousand years in the islamic and christian world. If the earth was not stationary, why did birds not fly off of it? Why wasn't there parallax in the constellations? Since the heavens are perfect the motion must follow perfect spheres? The theory was much more complete and accepted than human ghg is causing most of the warming and disaster is going to happen if humans don't stop. It also had much better correlation with observation than todays models. Not that there were not some things right, but we should be open to new observations and not blindly follow the consensus.

Now we know that parralax is there, just that the stars are farther away than the greeks estimated. I am sure the man centered universe hhelped with the dogma that the other planets must obit the earth instead of the sun. It also helps people get religious about blaiming man, or exonerating man. IMHO the evidence supports ghg based climate change. And man contributes to that. I don't like the non proven man is solely responsible being shoved down our throats and a pretend consensus making things scientific facts. The politics on both sides is counter productive, and we should not pretend its science.

 

"The question is really how much we want to suspend scientific method for belief in a relativelly new theory"

I don't wish for this at all.. I wish to understand the earth system better. IMHO the scientific method is the best way to do that. It is not without financial costs, though were this a political discussion, we might mention some other things that costs a lot more.

The only thing I'd care to shove down your throat is that anthropogenic net fluxes of CO2 to the atmosphere can now be reduced in several ways that are not being pursued as actively as I'd like. Several of them save money, save habitat of other species (that might someday be more directly useful to humans), improve energy independence and improve agricultural productivity.

Looks like an impressive set of 'wins' to me. Yet we are slowboating it. I suppose that this leads some to feelings of frustration and causes them to try to make the case more loudly. It is not entirely surprising that this feels like throat-shoving to some.

 

One of the biggest problems is that this unassailable pollution problem got reframed as a "theory" debate. Back when the ozone layer was being destroyed, the issue never really got recast as a "UV will doom the forest (or whatever)" problem. It was maintained as a pollution very adversely changing our atmosphere problem. Look at this growing Ozone hole. Hard to argue that.

There will be effects from 1500 ppm CO2 concentration. It's really hard to make a unassailable case that drought will be the worst problem....or that mega storms will be the worst problem.....or that rising sea levels will be the worst problem.....or (fill in blank) will be the worst problem. Pretty hard for anyone to prove that the status quo is unaffected with those CO2 levels. What is known is that man has destroyed a lot of local ecosystems with local pollution. What is also know is that fixing pollution problems made life better for the vast majority. Time for a reframing.

 

When I read the underlying science on climate change, I am always struck by how careful most scientists are to present the uncertainties.

In particular, when I read the IPCC AR4 (which, of course, everyone who comments on climate science obviously does, as that is the summary of what was know and not know about climate at the time it was written), I see an organization that distinguishes between robust findings (things they are sure of) and major uncertainties (things they are not sure of, but are sure that they matter). As here:

TS.6 Robust Findings and Key Uncertainties - AR4 WGI Technical Summary

Or even here, where they had an entire conference devoted to outlining the key uncertainties, what to do about them, and how the level of uncertainty should influence any policy guidance they might offer:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-workshop-2004-may.pdf

Similarly, they structured all of the language of the AR4 report around the measured levels of uncertainty. Despite the length, perhaps its worth a quote. If you read the AR4, you know that, on a page by itself, highlighted in yellow, the IPCC says this:

---------------------------------------------
"Treatment of uncertainty

The IPCC uncertainty guidance note1 defines a framework for the treatment of uncertainties across all WGs and in this Synthesis Report. This framework is broad because the WGs assess material from different disciplines and cover a diversity of approaches to the treatment of uncertainty drawn from the literature. The nature of data, indicators and analyses used in the natural sciences is generally different from that used in assessing technology development or the social sciences. WG I focuses on the former, WG III on the latter, and WG II covers aspects of both.

Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. Choices among and within these three approaches depend on both the nature of the information available and the authors’ expert judgment of the correctness and completeness of current scientific understanding.

Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by providing a relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is, information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and the degree of agreement (that is, the level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding). This approach is used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms such as: high agreement, much evidence; high agreement, medium evidence; medium agreement, medium evidence; etc.

Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less than 1 out of 10.

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.

WG II has used a combination of confidence and likelihood assessments and WG I has predominantly used likelihood assessments. This Synthesis Report follows the uncertainty assessment of the underlying WGs. Where synthesised findings are based on information from more than one WG, the description of uncertainty used is consistent with that for the components drawn from the respective WG reports.

Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the impression that they are pushing the idea of certainty. Instead, I see an organization doing its best to let all the evidence influence the findings, with all due respect for the uncertainties involved. Given the breadth of the task and the number of people involved, that's a pretty good trick.

Take the idea that cosmic rays drive climate. Did the IPCC ignore that idea? Were they so certain that was wrong that they dismissed it. No, of course not. In a snapshot, here's what they said about the research on cosmic rays in the AR4, when summing up some aspects of atmospheric aerosols:

"Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced
by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002)."

To me, that seems a fair statement. There is nothing like a well-established measured impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation. (Putting aside the fact that there is no trend in cosmic rays.)

Back on topic, even that APS statement, from 2007, (again for those of you who bothered to read it), was very careful to apply "unequivocal" only to the evidence that the earth has recently warmed, and to lay out the uncertainties around the rest of the science. The mere fact that there are uncertainties did not stop them from issuing a policy statement, nor should it. Given the risks and benefits, the evidence is plenty solid enough to tell us that some action is warranted.

 

Relatively related: Einstein's theory of relativity itself may be in danger. (But that deserves a different thread altogether.)

Carry on, gents. Carry on.

 

I guess I'll also offer my 2 cents on this "scientific method" thing.

There are a lot of people who naively equate scientific method with controlled experiment. And who therefore think that lack of controlled experiment equates to lack of science. That's not true, simply enough. Strength of inference is clearly higher when controlled experiments are possible. But (e.g.) physicians knew that aspirin reduced fever long before they had any clue why it did so, or before any controlled trial had been done. Can people be mistaken about such observational data? Sure, that's why you have scientific method.

But this isn't about scientific method, it's about policy. Sure, scientific method matters. But the purity of your science is the sina qua non only when there are no real-world implications from action and lack of action. When your decisions to act or not have real-world consequences, this moves from being purely a question of scientific method to one of policy.

From a policy standpoint, the question isn't whether you know anything with certainty. The question is, what's the smartest thing to do, given all the available evidence at the moment. Secondarily, given that it costs something (politically at least) to take action, how certain do we need to be about "the science" before we act? (The latter is where FUD comes in -- study after study shows that as long as you can maintain some hope that you don't have to act, you won't. Just talk to any smoker, drinker, or fat guy. Most won't get serious about it until they get the bad news from their doctor.)

At that point, it gets back to basics. I don't much care if you believe in cosmic rays or the tooth fairy, C02 is a greenhouse gas. It is persistent, and accumulates in the atmosphere. If we keep burning fossil fuels at this rate, there is little downside uncertainty about the level of atmospheric GHGs we are going to have in (say) 2100, and substantial upside uncertainty if this triggers large methane releases from the Arctic (and, now, the Antarctic as well.) With that level of GHG concentration, the mean estimate for the state of the world is grim, and even the sunny estimates show a substantially degraded environment. We can wish for something to make this go away, like a sudden and unprecedented change in cloud behavior (the Iris hypothesis). But, at present, that's just a wish. No credible natural mechanism has been identified that makes C02 not be a GHG, and none has been identified that would mitigate this problem to any significant degree. If it's going to be solved, we're going to have to solve it.

So from a policy perspective, the question isn't whether we have certainty, and certainly not whether we cannot act because we do not have evidence from controlled experiments. The question is the likely cost and benefit of action and inaction, given the information we have at hand, right now. The US CBO has already done their best to quantify the cost of converting to a low-carbon economy. I think the Brits have done the same. And it's not negligible, but it's not huge either. I think CBO came up with a range of 2 to 4 percent of GDP by 2050. Which, given that we only spend 5% of GDP on energy now, is a significant change for that sector. But hardly a deal breaker, compared to (e.g.) turning big chunks of the Midwest back into desert, as it was 7k to 10k years ago.

So, ultimately, I think pulling the "scientific method" card is unhelpful, at least for people who have some grasp of what scientific method means. Read the IPCC 2007 AR4, read the underlying articles. Read up on what "model validation" means. Judge for yourself whether you think these people have ignored scientific method. Lack of scientific method isn't the issue. The issue is unwillingness to act in the face of the evidence.

 

You dont see any trend?