Slashdot Mirror
Followup: Anti-Global Warming Story Itself Flawed
The Bad Astronomer writes "As posted earlier on Slashdot, a Forbes Op/Ed claims there is a 'gaping hole in global warming' theories, based on a recent paper. However, both the Forbes article and the paper on which it's based are themselves seriously flawed. The paper has been excoriated by climate scientists, saying the model used is 'unrealistic' and 'incorrect,' and the author has a track record of using bad models to make incorrect conclusions."
You know, whether or not the original article is BS, why is the very first point that the rebuttal piece linked above makes the fact that the original article uses the word 'alarmist' umpteen times? This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.
If you really believe that humans are not responsible for climate change in a significant capacity, and you see people running around talking about mass extinction and migration, then you'd probably call them alarmists.
If you really believe that humans are responsible for climate change in a significant capacity, and you see people running around dismissing climate change as nothing more than politics or researchers looking for more grants to keep their jobs in spite of the massive threat to, well, everything we know, love, and take for granted, then 'denier' is probably not even the meanest term you could come up with for them.
But talking about either one hasn't got anything to do with science, just like most schoolyard name-calling hasn't got anything to do with the science. There are industrial interests on both sides and not that many people who both care about solving the problem rather than calling a halt to civilization while also demonstrating the capacity and civility to talk about the issue without resorting to this kind of thing. Consequently, I can't help but wonder how many interested, semi-educated, but very-far-from-climate-experts like me there are out there who look at all this stuff and just scratch their heads.
If you actually read the paper and not the incredibly hyped press releases, the paper basically disclaims the validity of its own results. Note the following paragraph, immediately before the conclusions:
Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. We conclude that the fundamental obstacle to feedback diagnosis remains the same, no matter what time lag is addressed: without knowledge of time-varying radiative forcing components in the satellite radiative flux measurements, feedback cannot be accurately diagnosed from the co-variations between radiative flux and temperature.
The entire paper is about to trying to analyze the feedback from the co-variation between radiative flux and temperature-- this sentence basically says that, in their analysis, the analysis cannot be done accurately.
Basically, the paper does not "blow holes in global warming"-- what it does is say that this particular technique is not able to accurately discriminate the feedback function.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This guy is a professor at the (not very rigorous*) institution I did my undergraduate work at. (This is the "University of Alabama in Huntsville", not the larger and better-known University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.) I don't remember him specifically, but I know there was a cadre of anti-global-warming "climate scientists" there with a politico-religious axe to grind and who were pretty clearly not doing science for knowledge's sake.
It's notable that if you google this guy's (Spencer's) name, the first couple hits are to "www.drroyspencer.com/".
Nobody that I know who is actually a prominent scientist tries to pimp their public persona to this degree, or (tellingly) makes a big deal about the title "Dr."
*They really do have shitty academic standards. I graduated summa cum laude with a BS in physics, yet had never written $\vec x$ (we never did formal vector algebra), and wound up having to take four "remedial" undergrad classes at the Univ of Arizona where I am finishing up grad school.
Two Wrongs don't make a Right...
This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.
But I didn't see the word 'denier' in the rebuttal. All I saw was the footnote:
* Mind you, of course, I use the word "denier" quite a bit when discussing this topic, but in this case the shoe fits. When you deny overwhelming evidence, you’re a denier. Scientists trying to tell people what the science is telling them aren’t alarmists. They’re scientists. And as you can see from what other climate scientists are saying, what the Forbes article is based on apparently isn’t good science.
This two labels are equally dangerous in addressing global warming. This isn't a problem that half the world can solve without the help of the other half. By using either of these two terms, you're invoking a with-us-or-against-us mentality that is dangerous. Since these two labels are diametrically opposed, it does nobody any good to use them. Dismissing studies on global warming as 'alarmist' doesn't allow any information to be garnered from these reports which is really sad. Dismissing opponents as 'denialist' doesn't allow you to differentiate between people who acknowledge climate change but don't think it's man made and people who deny any climate change at all. Which is also very sad, there's people that want to do something about climate change but aren't sold that we're the cause of it. Why shut them out?
... I thought he had made an effective point without resorting to name-calling.
Like most things in life, this isn't black and white. By polarizing everyone involved, you halt the flow of information and push back the date where we can work together to solve this problem. There is a whole spectrum of solutions that lie in front of us, using the terms 'denialist' or 'alarmist' prevents us from selecting one of them as a cohesive group looking to move forward.
I applaud The Bad Astronomer from refraining from using the label 'denialist' as often as the original article used 'alarmist' (easily once per paragraph). I don't know why he included that footnote
My work here is dung.
The only people saying "We have to tax anyone heavily to fight global warming" are people who are opposed to doing anything about global warming. If you're opposed to legislative action, an effective tactic is to paint it in the most extreme terms possible, but doing so is pretty scummy and shameless. "You want to reform patent law? Well you're just going to do away with all patents and all products and we're going to be living in CAVES!!!"
Carbon taxes are necessarily going to be a part of the solution, yes, but the effect could and would be offset by tax breaks elsewhere. Hell, for some reason tax breaks are a part of the debt reduction plans, to think that businesses would fail miserably under a mountain of taxes because we're trying to reduce pollution is nonsense and not backed up by history.
Nice of you to speak up for those poor widdle corporations though against those big, mean treehuggers, by the way.
Also, if you read the article -really closely- (IE, with your eyes) you'll notice that the reasons they give have nothing to do with dogmatic beliefs.
Yes.
I noticed the same point being brought up in the recent feed page when the first story was submitted, yet the editors didn't seem to pay any attention to it. Then a day or two later a different story gets posted with the same information.
Uncharitable interpretation: The editors aren't doing their job.
Charitable interpretation #1: A large group of people voted for the first submission, while a different large group of people voted for the second submission. The editors are just being agnostic and giving us what we (collectively) ask for.
Charitable(?) interpretation #2: The editors know that climate stories get lots of discussion, so they figured two different stories on the subject means we get to have twice as much "fun" yelling at each other about it.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The point is that we're using way too much energy and food and pollute our own habitat and nobody cares. :)
Oh well. Evolution will find a way after we're gone
Privacy is terrorism.
I've done a meta-analysis and found that since the number of people using the word "denier" outnumbers the number of people using the word "alarmist" by a significant factor (p<0.05), the deniers must be touching a nerve, and therefore are right (p<pi/e).
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Now, perhaps this fudging of the data wasn't malicious (in fact, I'll argue that it was done with the best of intentions), and perhaps some of the fudges actually have a reasonable rationale that we can agree upon - but let's not pretend that there is a magical thermometer we can stick in the air, and get the current Global Average Temperature (much less a magical thermometer we can read from 1000 years ago to do the same thing). At best, this is a field over-reliant on proxy data, and *everyone* should be skeptical of that sort of weak science.
Here is the beginning of that paragraph, which you so conveniently left out:
"Determination of whether regression coefficients at various non-zero time lags might provide a more accurate estimate of feedback has been recently explored by [14], but is beyond the scope of this paper. Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. ..."
There, fixed that for ya. The first sentence you quoted is clearly referring to the immediately preceding sentence, not to the conclusions that follow.
Further, what the entire paper is about, is how well the climate models being shoved at us reflect reality. Their conclusions are that the climate models cannot predict this phenomenon, as they claim to. These are not the authors' own climate models, they are models taken from the IPCC reports. So there is no contradiction there.
So their conclusion is perfectly valid: if there is no way to "accurately diagnose" the effects of feedback, then the models we are told to believe in are deeply flawed. And that is what this paper shows.
.
Fair enough. Here you go.
taking the words of people whose careers depend on it
Phil is an astronomer. And methinks you are a troll.
mt
I disagree with your premises. Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).
Put another way, how would you feel if I demanded that all governments around the world provide massive carbon *subsidies* (on the level of what they put, per MW, to say, solar and wind), because I believe that a warm world is a good world, and that CO2 helps warm the planet?
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial (and let's take a wild guess about how often that happens).
Obviously someone on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, someone with a history of bullshit claims, someone who discredited himself a scientist by endorsing "intelligent design", however, has a reputation of being unbiased and can be believed. No, the bad astronomer has the burden of proof. Sure.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Roy Spencer, the co-author of the "gaping hole" study, is on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
These folk believe, among other things, that God will not allow the Earth to be harmed by Global Warming:
"The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost. Is that idea true? We believe not. We believe that idea – we'll call it "global warming alarmism" – fails the tests of theology, science, and economics."
This is not science.
Appeal to authority is not always fallacious. For instance, if your mechanic says "The reason your car is overheating and your smelling combustion products in your coolant is because your head gasket is blown", he is speaking as an authority, and is very likely right.
From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html:
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
You know, sort of like how pseudo-skeptic organizations will find some guy with a physics degree who denies AGW, thus committing a fallacious appeal to authority.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You see, this isn't a matter of belief. We're not talking about the premise of your religion here. All of the range of scientific projections on what the planet will be like if warmed a few degrees, or more, are of a far less comfortable place to live, with far less carrying capacity, leading to a whole lot of death and dislocation for human populations. You may believe that human life is evil, and so all this would please whatever beings you worship. Yes, we have sociopaths among humanity who have no compassion for other human beings. But it's not the majority of us, even if it's a large subset of the self-identified "libertarians" who like to go all Pollyanna about what a few degrees C in rise in average temperature will do to the quality of life - particularly human life.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Could you point me to the papers that Al Gore has published on AGW. For that matter, can you point me to the articles that Freeman Dyson has published on AGW.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
An appeal to an authority where the person is in fact an authority is not fallacious. Would you rather everyone who quotes a climatologist put in a full bibliography? In other words, your complaint is bullshit.
If someone is quoting Al Gore, well, that's a fallacious appeal to authority. If someone is citing NASA atmospheric scientists, that is a legitimate citation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Here's the thing. For domains where I have a solid basis to form an opinion, I am perfectly willing to do deep reading to from my own opinion on the subject. I do not, however, have a solid basis in climatology. I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to synthesize the raw data available into a working model or even critique somebody else's. The only sane option I have in this (and very many other) fields is to trust those who make it their life work to study the field. Are you really so arrogant as to think you are any different?
In the case of our politicians, usually their fields of expertise extend to business and law. They don't have any basis other than listening to the authorities in the field to even begin having a reasonable opinion on the subject, or any other scientific field of study. If the experts are legitimately conflicted, then they have to make tough decisions, and hopefully do so with the humbleness required to see that they are flying blind. If the experts in the field largely agree, which is more or less true per GP with regard to global warming, then our politicians should be using that as a basis for policy (while still, of course, reasonably hedging their bets in case they are wrong and we find new, more appropriate models as the science advances).
Now, the only way I can get anything like that out of my politicians is if the general populace stops thinking that reading blogs for 30 minutes gives them the required basis to have a meaningful opinion on a subject. It's cool that you are into science and all, but unless you have the skill set required to critically analyze research papers on climatology, there is no "we" that should do anything regarding the research presented. There is only a "they", and the "they" is made up of climatologists working in the field. And do you know what answer "they" have given us? It's that "... the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the 'greenhouse effect'" per the article listed above.
If we keep electing politicians that think they know better just because they agree with our own poorly-informed views, it's eventually going to be the death of us all.
I verified these things for myself, to my own satisfaction. (I have a background in the hard sciences, but not climate science.)
This 10 min clip speaks to that questions you bring up. I dare you to sit all the way through it.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
15 years may not be enough. It all depends on the data, and its noise and trend. A weak trend combined with a lot of noise may not be statistically significant over a 15 year period.
Current warming trend is about 0.017 deg C, which means a .26 degree warming in 15 years. Year to year variation (noise) can be 0.4 degrees, so it's easy to see how the noise can swamp the data in such a short period.
Also, if the rising CO2 is combined with other factors, such as increased aerosols, La-Nina effects, or a less active sun, the warming may be less. In order to falsify AGW due to CO2, those effects must not be present at the same time in an amount that would be sufficient to counteract the CO2.
Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way
Your right to wave your fist around ends at my nose.
You can burn as much fossil fuel as you want if you don't put the waste into the atmosphere.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Both sides call each other names.
The argument of the relative middle ground is *precisely* how astro-turf organisations like Heartland and Marshall spread FUD. They take an extreme position, drum up a lot of noise, and then watch as "reasonable" people say "the truth must be somewhere in-between". This has been documented in history time and time again, and is orchestrated by the same people. It is really fascinating to learn about how this part of the public discourse works.
One of the interesting things about all of this is that key people, such as Frank Luntz freely admit that they are manipulating the discourse on climate change, and it simply makes no difference.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Here they are, but I doubt you will try to understand them:
First you need to understand this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave_radiation
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
"The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER."
no one claims that. Only people claiming that people claim that.
" But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, "
No, it's a scientific issue, what to do about it is a political issue.
" so you've picked your side (democrat) "
hahaha, now your boiling it down to the side of the Aisle?
democrats like:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jon Huntsman
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Chris Smith
Tim Pawlenty
Bob Inglis
oh, wait those are all republicans, my mistake.
In order to support their religious base, The POLITICAL stance of the republicans has been 'no global warming' however if yo look at many of them and there votes, you can see a different picture.
But hey, I actually pay attention to these details, and like researching what different representatives vote for,.
What I don't understand is people like you, who are provably wrong, that keep on spouting your lies. Why?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Am I the only one who misses the old days when a post like this would reliably contain an obfuscated Goatse link within the first three comments?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Trenberth takes it on further on RealClimate.
mt