Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)

Can we get this carved into Mount Rushmore? Maybe as speech bubble coming out of Jefferson's mouth?

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

That's great, except for the fact that "prediction" is pluralized.

It's little defense of a prediction to say that in the multiple models and the averaging of them together, there is a range (the high end of which is significantly different from the low end in terms of how alarmed we should be) within which the observed temperatures fell. There are lots of statistical models that average our their simulations to smooth out outliers and produce better predictions, and make that average the primary prediction. But I've never heard of pointing to one of those aggregated simulations (as opposed to the average) as evidence of success. Identifying the specific simulation (or aggregation of simulations) beforehand is what makes it a prediction in the first place.

Yeah, I'm not saying the idea that ocean heat matters is retroactive, I'm saying that you can't include a factor retroactively as a defense, to say that a seemingly inaccurate or imprecise prediction was actually right if you factor it in. Maybe this isn't what you were trying to do, but the parenthetical statement sure made it sound that way.

Yikes, this paragraph is straw man genocide.

Nothing in what I said necessitated any comically sinister, single-minded Decepticons posing as scientists. There are few situations where anyone is hired to study anything with a political impact where there isn't an implicit understanding in what outcome is expected, and this goes for all ideologies and positions. The cynical notion, however, is more about the way the data are used than the way it's produced.

And the notion that this idea (or even the rhetorical cartoon sketch of it above) is refuted by examples of scientists studying more esoteric things is a total non-sequitur. Even if I were suggesting that all scientists were mustache-twirlers, it still wouldn't follow that everything they say and do would reinforce this.

Glad we agree. I look forward to them being more thoroughly analyzed. I suspect more surprises are in store, seeing as how there always have been.

Well, seeing as how I doubt the efficacy already on principle, it wouldn't make a lot of sense not to, would it?

We can trade barbs of confirmation bias if you like; nobody's doing original research here. And if you read something by Watts I'm pretty sure you assume "the scientists" have a response even if you don't yet know what it is, yes? But I don't think that sort of thing gets us very far, especially when the difference in opinion is so broadly conceptual.

Yeah, the forecasts being decadal wasn't really the point, it was the fact that you'd probably have just been telling me about whatever the latest projections were, even though we have a much greater appreciation now for how volatile they can be.

In other words, it's not enough to just say "here's the latest research" as if it needs to be specifically refuted in order to be doubted. There will always be a "latest" measurement, and it will always stand temporarily unchallenged simply by virtue of being the latest. And this was true in the 90s, even though we now have a much greater appreciation for how these other factors can swamp the projections.


C'mon, this isn't you. I know it's easier to shunt every skeptic off into some far-flung extreme of the debate, but there's a perfectly clear distinction between "not science" and "not sufficient," which I even took the time to explain in my last post, just to be safe.

I'm sure it's always tempting to dismiss all climate skeptics as nutty conspiracy theorists who trust their own gut over the scientific process, but I believe very strongly in that process. Strongly enough not to affix the label to just anything with a lot of math in it.

Pretty sure it's all three. I would't dismiss this so blithely. Statistical overfitting is not a small problem; it's pretty much the problem when you've got a lot of data at your disposal. And you couldn't design a better situation to illustrate its pitfalls than the one we have with climate models.

With the ostensible goal of pushing back on his critique, yes? It didn't seem like a sidebar. So the fact the stations achieve the binary designation of "Has been peer reviewed in some form? Please check yes or no" isn't really relevant to the critique, especially when the first essentially acknowledges the bias, anyway, but merely isn't sold on an alternative.

I think, if we're being honest, this is pretty good summary of your entire position.

The surface temperature adjustments.

But regardless, you have chosen...wisely. Glad I asked.

Wordplay aside (not that I don't love it), we're at a pretty clear impasse if your response to my problems with the process are "that's just the nature of the beast." I accept that some fields of study are like this, but those aren't the fields of study I want to be guiding major policy decisions.

Speaking of which...

Define "listen." We should absolutely listen, but there's a world of difference between "hey, we think there's a long-term trend, and we really need to keep an eye on this" and "the fate of the planet is at stake and we need to potentially upend our way of life and if you think otherwise you're an anti-science troglodyte." My words, not theirs, but one can read between the lines.

I've mentioned the influences on policy a few times, but you haven't said anything in response. But that influence is really the only reason this topic is contentious. And it ties directly into the more scientifically-focused discussions, because the burden of proof for merely claiming that we're warming is far lower than the burden of proof for any specific action that might be taken in response.


The long term ones are falsifiable eventually. The short term ones are subject to wild variations. So right or wrong, there's an uncomfortable gap between the time we're being asked to make decisions during, and the time at which reality gets to work its corrective magic in a really definitive way.

And I simply have to reject the distinction you're implying when you talk about philosophical objections "trumping facts." As I said before, nobody's doing original research, so most of your stance here is based on trust in the processes involved, just as mine is based on skepticism of those same processes.

I happen to think your trust is very often warranted, but it is not an alternative to ideology--it is an ideology. It carries all sorts of epistemological assumptions with it.

He was talking more about the market, though as is so often the case the general principles apply to all sorts of things. His solution for markets was to let prices coordinate the knowledge that's so widely spread throughout society, as opposed to relying on centralized solutions that can never hope to possess even a fraction of that information. Obviously, the physical sciences are somewhat different (and Hayek said as much), so there's not a direct analogue or anything.

There is, however, a great deal of relevance when we go beyond the scientific question to the political ones, as I discussed above. And in that context, the question itself--what his "solution" was--is really just an example of the mindset he was trying to challenge.

So in essence you acknowledge that the IPCC projections are on track to date, but you think they've hedged their bets unfairly to achieve this?

I've had a stab at digging into why the projections are cast as a range. Unsurprisingly it's fiendishly involved. It seems that my supposition that it's down to accounting for 'known unknowns' seems to be a fair (if massively simplified) summary. IE you can lay out a mean of the models & temperature predictions, as in this chart of the 4 possible policy scenarios (RCPs) that they use:


IPCC 5, Working Group 1, chapter 12, pages 8/9

But you've then cast off all the 'known unknowns' where models conflict
(potential Arctic amplification, North Atlantic warming) & where the timing of natural variability is unpredictable (volcanoes etc). So you can do it, but it means dumping useful data & making it more likely to be errant in the short term.

I'm not sure what you mean by the simulation not being identified in advance. The 'multi-modal' set of complementary but distinct models that they use seems to have been pretty settled for a while now.

(For what it's worth, I only look at the lowest end of the scale with these projections, as my cynicism about all the potential error bars & processes does still run deep, even if that doesn't come across often in these conversations. It probably won't assuage your suspicions to hear that even the lowest end of the scale, under a business-as-usual scenario, is still fairly alarming, however.)

I think we're on different pages here. It might be to do with more than the parenthesis. I think it's possibly this: I raised the ocean prediction as a supplementary example (admittedly before I'd expounded my full position) of the 'hiatus' being anticipated.

Around late 2007 when that prediction was made the 'hiatus' wasn't considered as such by scientists because the data wasn't in, so I doubt the scientists themselves were trying to retroactively explain anything away. (If you look at the shonky line I've drawn on this shonky wiki graph, you can see the temperature shifts were slowing but in a way which was pretty comparable to previous dips). From my perspective, coloured somewhat by the reading I was doing at the time, this seems like a pretty reasonable example of a core recent element of the 'hiatus' being predicted in advance.

Overall I'm not sure where I'm introducing retroactive defences.

Hah, fair enough, that was sarcasm overload . And also perhaps a gasket blowing over the 'funding agenda' meme, purely because I've read so many examples of truly innovative science over the years in the climate sphere, which seem to embody a freethinking passion for the subject, that sometimes I just gotta let em out

I agree with you on the use of data needing utmost scrutiny and that groupthink is an ever-present problem. I'd only extend the above to say I've seen copious examples of climate scis tearing strips off each-other for inaccuracy & unfounded conclusions etc (something the public rarely sees, in part because of the fear of what the more rabid contrarians with do with it), and I just hope that it extends as far talking shops like the IPCC.

Arg, I've cited predictions from the 90s that still hold true, and that referenced those self-same volatilities that you're saying are new. And those are what I would have been citing for you at the time. Show me some IPCC-endorsed claims from the 90s that have fallen by the wayside.

No I absolutely agree with the worry, I just don't see you providing any specific evidence for it having taken place in the examples cited to date.

To a degree yes because a decade or so of reading into climate sci has taken it's toll in how much of this type of back-and-forth I can delve into to any detailed level. Watts's blog has an 'axe to grind' vibe which is very consistent with previous contrarians who've claimed much but ultimately only produced hot air. Hence my hesitance to dive in.

In part it's question of synthesis. If Watts is right, then a whole raft of other climate science is wrong, not just the temperature measurements in the US. I'm pretty much using Occam's razor on this one I'm afraid.

It's not far off, so long as I see the pros still tearing strips off each-other

I still can't see historical downgrading mentioned anywhere in the link, or after a very quick scan through the paper. It just seems to be an extension of his claim that urban heat isn't fully accounted for. Unless you're saying it's deliberately not being accounted for I don't get how this equates to historical downgrading. You're gonna have to pull me out some quotes

I think it's a fair riposte to be honest. The reason for putting up with such a big galumphing goose of a process is that it's the best we've got, and the climate record suggests pretty emphatically that we need to do something. If you've got any suggestions for improving it jump in

I'm not sure what I can add to the IPCC's projections for policy changes (the RCPs etc). Other than to say you're right it's hugely difficult to gauge best action, and I'm fairly cynical about us finding a functional fix in the short term. (Pretty much holding out for some form of energy-lite carbon-stripping miracle cure to be honest).

There's lag certainly, which is part of the problem (in terms of C02's lengthy 'half life', as much as the rolling-falsifiability lag). But if you hold the science to be good enough, on the grounds that it has passed many falsifiability-tests to date, then there is still room for greenhouse gases emissions themselves to be used as the metric of success.

I wasn't talking about your good self so much, (although I do think you fall into it at times), more about the broader debate

I decided a long time ago that I'd never understand the science at a meaningful level, but that I could read as many layers down as I was capable of comprehending, and read widely. And I've done that for a decade (focusing on the high end sci journalism, as much as that comes with confirmation-bias risks, paying for the good stuff whenever needed). I like to think my default position is not so much built on trust, but on a skepticism which hasn't found a smoking gun, but which has found lots of due diligence, and a mosaic of arguments which stand up on their own, and tend to complement each other in complex ways (or take each other down in flames when they don't ).

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I agree with the principles, but I think they apply more strongly to a world where Goodhart's law romps merrily. For all the human foibles involved, much of climate science can at least fall back on physics

I guess we just see it from different angles ultimately. Despite my utterly scant sci credentials (a smattering of social science, shhhh ), I now take the science to be strong enough to overcome the groupthink etc from the bottom up. Or hope it will. I think you might be taking the idea that Hayekian flaws have permeated a long way down as a one of your key starting points.

This may be the last time I try this as I clearly can't force anyone to believe in anything. Here's some pretty amazing proof that the planet is not just warming, its going into overdrive, and it may already be too late. This isn't the research that you claim is faulty or based on bullsh*t models or whatever. This is simply documented visual proof of what I am talking about. And the dangers that we face.The movie that I'd love to get you to watch in total is called Chasing Ice. I know you have a hard time with docs sometimes, but I assure you Chris, its well worth the 75 minutes it took me to watch.

But at the very least please watch this video taken just barely two years ago. And tell me what you think.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

I owe Gol a reply or two, though an impasse seems inevitable. But they're forthcoming anyway.

Since this reply is fresh and straightforward, though, I figure I'd just respond now:

Be glad to. I think that it depicts some fairly amazing stuff, but that it simply isn't the proof you think it is.

There's a huge gap between the things people claim when they talk about climate change and the things they actually produce evidence for. For example, you're trying to convince me that we're warming and that the glacier in question is receding--but I already believe those things. That wasn't the claim. The claims were things like what you're saying now: "it's going into overdrive" and "it may already be too late," neither of which are evinced by what was posted. Not to mention the unstated implication that it's happening completely because of us.

This is why the debate is so muddled. It's not because a bunch of us luddites are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge hard scientific facts. It's because lots of pepole who think something's happening refusing to acknowledge any gradation in the claims. It all just gets sort of lumped together. So they say one thing which is highly speculative and not at all scientific--"we're doomed and it's all our fault"--and when that's called into question, they defend something completely different--"it's getting warmer and glaciers are receding." It's a bait-and-switch.

If you want to base this off of some kind of vibe that things are bad, which you can see just by looking outside, then that's a gut level reaction (and one you've said you've had since you were a kid, if memory serves). I can't much argue with gut reactions, except to point out that they're not scientific. And if we stay strictly scientific, it'll tell you we are warming, but it won't give you proof of some inevitable doomsday, either.

But the planet is going into overdrive. The ice is receding at unprecedented levels. You can deny it all you want but its a fact. I merely wanted to show you that there is undeniable proof of that. Just imagine if a chunk of ice broke off big enough to raise the oceans by 3 or 4 feet instantly.You can take it and do with it what you will. The rest of the doc is really very good stuff. I hope you watch it sometime. And like they talk about in the doc, I still believe we can tip the scale back buy reducing co2 and the green house effect. Its actually a relatively easy thing for an entire civilization to accomplish if only we could get the rest of the world to just believe in the problem!

You know Chris, I really like you. But its pretty frustrating arguing with you about this. I honestly can't tell if you believe in most or any of this stuff, or none of it. We agree on little things here and there but I'm never quite sure where you stand. Do you think we human beings, are affecting the climate change or not? Can I just ask you that?

Unprecedented on what timeline, though? The last century, right? How old do you believe the world is?

I haven't been at all cagey about what I believe, though. So it's probably frustrating because of what I'm describing--buying into the false dichotomy of "we're doomed!" .vs. "absolute nothing is happening!" If you implicitly accept that framing of the issue, it's going to lead to situations like this, where I express skepticism at the conclusions and you try to convince me merely that anything is happening at all.

At all? Then yes, I do.

But that's obviously not what we're really talking about, because it's not a straight shot from "are we affecting the climate at all" to "the planet's in imminent danger and we need to do something right now." And the dozens of gradations between these two statements is what I'm talking about. It's not an inevitable march of logic from "something is happening" to all the other trappings of the climate debate. So that's my question for you: do you recognize this distinction?

Of course I recognize the distinction. I can see we're at an impasse. We're going around in circles and I can see by the lack of other posters in this thread that just like in the real world, no one really believes this is happening. I hope the folks that believe that are right.

Sorry this took awhile--been busy, and reading the last couple of replies make it seem like we're nearly at an impasse already, anyway. But you put thought into your replies, so they deserve no less. Onward:

With the big ol' caveat that both of us might be misunderstanding it a little, yes. It appears there are several projections, and an average, and that the response to people pointing out the inaccuracy of this average has been to point to some of its individual components.

It's not at all weird to average out different projections to account for outliers and produce better predictions. That's a very common way to account for uncertainty that you'll find in everything from sports simulations to political polling. But my understanding (which is not that of an expert, but also not nothing) is that isolating one simulation or one projection that makes up this average as an example of calling it correctly would be bizarre in any other area.

I think you're right, about the wide (and multiple) ranges being an attempt to account for "known unknowns." Which means this goes right back to the "nature of the beast" thing. See below for more on that.

I'm referring to this:

"If you mean 'alarming' predictions then it doesn't run counter to those. (IE the oceanic heat is still an issue, is liable to be released into the atmosphere again down the line, & can't escape into space when it's down there etc) ."

It sounds here like you're saing the alarming predictions haven't been countered because the heat is just in the ocean instead. But when that isn't taken into account in those predictions, it isn't really a defense of them, since the gradual discovery of the things we're failing to account for is the whole point. Make sense, or are we talking at cross-purposes?

I dig. And I don't doubt that passion in many cases--with the important caveat that there are venal, opportunistic people anywhere, and more than usual in a potential growth area. My cynicism has more to do with busted incentives and the misuse of the research--the latter of which is really, really clear when you examine the gulf between the actual science and the way it's employed for political or rhetorical ends. This is a debate where a lot of skeptics admittedly can be very blithe about the research, and where their opponents speak with a certainty and derision that just flat out doesn't jibe with how hard this is. The next time I hear someone other than you say "known unknowns" in this debate will be the first.

For example, I mentioned the spurious claims about storms and climate change before, and we're seeing it now with government commisions claiming that heatwaves are made worse by global warming, which is completely at odds with the defenses about how climate is not weather and short-term predictions aren't really possible right now. There's a lot of browbeating of deniers for allegedly practicing in pseudoscience, but when I see how relatively unscathed this stuff is, it's hard not to conclude that faith in the scientific process, for many, extends only as far as is necessary to club someone with.

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow that reasoning. For one thing, it seems like there'd be an inverse correlation between how falsifiable something is and how much "tearing up" people do of each other over it. You're way more likely to have a lot of fighting about subjective things than truly objective ones.

For another, groupthink happens when people implicitly accept a premise, so I don't see how questioning some resulting process would indicate that this is less likely to be happening. Idealogues argue just as fervently about the particulars of whatever they believe whether they've adequantely questioned their premises or not.

The First Assessment Report, issued in 1990, predicted a 0.3C increase per decade. It's two and a half decades later, and the observed increase is, what, one-fifth of that? From what I can tell even under their alternate scenario, where significant steps are taken to reign in emissions, they would've doubled the observed increase.

Of course, the FAR had a margin of error (or "uncertainty range"), but that range was larger than the predicted increase itself! So it's kind of absurd to say the results are "within the projection" when a) you define "the projection" not as the actual prediction, but the entire range made possible by the margin of error, and b) the margin of error is so large that both a significant increase and a decrease could fit within it.

Eh? By definition, you can't have "specific evidence" for overfitting: it's borne out by whether or not the allegedly overfit model works in the future. We just know the hallmarks: lots of data and post-hoc explanations, which describes this situation to a tee.

Leaving aside the numerous ways in which one can phrase things to make Occam's Razor cut whichever way (Which is simpler? That we can account for a thousand variables accurately over unobserved centuries, or that we can't?), Watts being "right" isn't binary. It's not as if every one of his doubts is correct, or else he can be safely dismissed. It looks like you concurred with my earlier statements about not falling into the false we're doomed/nothing's happening dichotomy, so we wouldn't want to fall into something similar here, where we either dismiss a "whole raft of climate science" or else assume Watts' critiques are wrong. Even the peer review you produced doesn't say that--it just seems at a loss for an alternative.

I was thinking of the fact that the range in question goes back about 40 years, and of the fact that all the long-term historical comparisons are necessarily based on reconstructions (the TAR is, partially, I believe). And from what I can see most of the dismissals about the Medieval Warming Period are based on finding plausible explanations (solar flares, decreased volcanic activity) and deciding they're responsible, which is pretty much the same thing, too.

Ah, but of course, phrasing it that way is part of the disagreement: if you don't like our climate models, what's yours? If you don't like what we're doing, what should we do? Unstated assumption: SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. It's the same posture as the dismissal of Watts' critiques: dismissing skepticism through the demand of an alternative, even though they're separate questions.

I like Megan McCardle's summary of this logic, which persists across nearly all politcal debates: 1) Something must be done. 2) This is something. 3) This must be done. You've probably seen this employed in fields like healthcare, and it's a pretty great way to expand power or funding.

Anyway, if you acknowledge it's a fair concern, then that's the part where we probably have to shrug and wait a couple of decades to see what happens. Genuine philosophical impasses (as opposed to the "nobody's going to change their mind" type, which are different) are rare, but I think that's what this is. I acknowledge that significant things that require action may be happening even if we can't measure them, and you appear to acknowledge that acting in time means doing so before the threat (and/or the extent of its severity) is definitive.

I do want to point out, by the way, how closely this mirrors the discussions about preemptive war so many of us had just a decade ago, but with the roles reversed.

Yeah, and this, by the way, is the more important point. I feel like a huge part of the climate change debate is really about using it as some kind of political or ideological litmus test, to portray people as backwards or unscientific or what have you. But that's all just posturing, because the serious question is what we do, and the burden of proof on actually taking a specific action is a lot higher than the burden of proof on acknowledging that we're warming, or maybe even warming fast enough that we should worry. And that's the part I'm really interested in.

We're in the same place on the "miracle cure," for what it's worth, except I don't think it takes a miracle. As PW suggested before, there's a lot of reason to have faith in our ability to solve these kinds of well-defined problems. If you forced me to predict the next 50 years of this debate, it's that it continues to warm slowly (often more slowly than projected, because of one external transcendent factor or another), and eventually we find technologically advanced ways to mitigate the effects.

Oh, it didn't have to be about me. I'm just highlighting that the divide isn't ideology vs. science, but one ideology vs. another, since we both have to ultimately make abstract epistemological judgments about the limits of human knowledge and how to manage uncertainty. The ideology that puts a degree of faith in the scientific process makes plenty of sense to me, but I think it's important to recognize that this belief is not science itself.


I think if you're equating the Hayekian flaws with mere groupthink, then I've done a poor job of conveying it. Groupthink is too simplistic an explanation. It's more about our general inability to know and control things. One hesitates to predict where some great thinker would have come down on a modern issue, but it seems safe to conclude that whatever Hayek thought of the scientific question, he would have been extremely skeptical of the idea that any problem should be met with a national, centralized solution--nevermind a global one.

And I'd say my main starting point is sort of a compliment to Goodhart's Law, which you mentioned: when a lot of money and power hinges on a scientific question, it struggles to remain scientific. That's why I keep coming back to the politically actionable part of this: because my first act in all this is to notice that someone wants to use the answer to this question to control something.

Also, if anyone's interested, here's a great episode of EconTalk (fantastic podcast) on climate change. Very respectful, considered discussion, and I think the representative for the climate change side does a pretty sensible thing in framing the question not in terms of certainty, but in terms of risk:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/201...hristy_an.html

It's of interest to me how little people are talking about what may soon become the most dominant issue of our time. Whether you believe in climate change or not its hard to just cast off some of the historic weather events we are witnessing right now.

I've been watching these lately. Just reporting on whats happening. You can look up the facts for yourself, if you're so inclined.

Climate and Extreme Weather News #27 (5/19-5/27)

Climate & Extreme Weather News #28 (May 27th to May 30th 2017)

Little victories...



And not alone: Climate Mayors - Open Letter

---

Some of the more egregious misrepresentations in his speech which stood out:

• Yes, China, can do whatever they want, and build coal plants. But they're not. They're drawing back from them and pursuing alternate sources. And they're doing it under the aegis of the Paris agreement.
• The aim of the climate agreement is to prevent a 2C rise above industrial levels (and the potential feedback loops that get nasty from around that threshold, and make reversal more difficult), not to get a 'tiny tiny' 2/10ths reduction in temperature. The degree of reduction almost doesn't matter, it's the act of reduction.

Not a surprise that he went this way. Definitely a shame though. Can only hope industry pursue these ends off their own back, out of long-term vision, and the potential profits inherent in new energy tech.

Perhaps you're right Gols... Here's a handful of American businessmen that are trying to stand up. Just a drop in the bucket tho...

Climate & Extreme Weather News #29 (May 30th to June 1st 2017)

Climate & Extreme Weather News #30 (June 1st to June 3rd 2017)










Define IRONY: A rich white President does something so stupid, about something he "knows" is a hoax.... and inadvertently gets an entire world talking about an issue very few believe in. Change? Ha! Yeah sure. The US is still BY FAR the highest per person polluters on the planet and we intend to keep it that way. Gah bless!