Climate Change

[Taem]

:LINK:

North Carolina tries to outlaw climate models

17:55 15 June 2012 by Hannah Krakauer
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
Political satirist Stephen Colbert's solution to unfavourable climate science is simple: "If your science gives you a result that you don't like, pass a law saying that the result is illegal. Problem solved."

Legislators in North Carolina are apparently of the same mindset. When a state-appointed commission announced that North Carolinians could expect 39 inches of sea-level rise by 2100, the Senate responded with a bill that legally prevents the Division of Coastal Management from using the climate model that forecasts fast-rising sea levels. Instead, the legislators would like to see coastal management use only a linear model, which predicts a mere 8-inch rise by the same year.

The 8-inch model, based solely on historical records from the last 100 years, flies in the face of modern climate science. Sea level rise is due to a combination of climate-driven factors: warmer temperatures cause ocean water to expand, and rising temperatures are melting the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps. The combined feedback makes for exponential – not linear – growth. Yet the North Carolina bill states: "Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise."

"This is unprecedented," says Orrin Pilkey, professor emeritus of geology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. "It's the first time a law has dictated the shape of a curve."

NC-20, the group behind the bill, has argued that incorporating the 39-inch predictions would be an enormous economic burden on coastal communities. "The legislature has declined to face the problem of what we're going to do about it, and instead has attacked the science," contends Pilkey.

Though the bill passed the Senate by 34 votes against 11 and seems poised to make a smooth run through the House, Pilkey and other climate scientists are hoping that the governor will veto it.

Yes, that makes so much sense. Alter science to fit into law; not the other way around. I'm sure this will make all the problems go away . And yet we elected and still pay for these dolts to be in office... Well, I suppose denial is the key to salvation - no offence to those who feel offended - deny whats logical (and can be proven) and rely on faith alone.

[Mavfin]

I'm not defending at all what they're doing on the law side, but, the science on this is a bit shaky, too. Too much "if the data doesn't fit the model, make the data go away and don't talk about it" going around to make me happy either way.

[Jester]

I'm not defending at all what they're doing on the law side, but, the science on this is a bit shaky, too. Too much "if the data doesn't fit the model, make the data go away and don't talk about it" going around to make me happy either way.

Which data is this that is being made to go away?

-Jester

[Ruvanal]

I also wonder on how enormous would be the economic burden on the coastal communities if they are not prepared for an extra 2 feet of water rise.

[Mavfin]

I'm not defending at all what they're doing on the law side, but, the science on this is a bit shaky, too. Too much "if the data doesn't fit the model, make the data go away and don't talk about it" going around to make me happy either way.

Which data is this that is being made to go away?

-Jester

There are time blocks (100s of thousands of years) from some geological eras where the carbon dioxide levels are much higher than anything we have now, but evidence points to temperatures in general being lower than now. However, the climate experts who push the climate change don't bring those up, because they don't fit the model that they're pushing on everyone.

Some of this came out when some emails between researchers were leaked several years ago, talking about data they were going to ignore, because it didn't fit their pet theories. No, I don't have links, but it's not hard to find.

Fact is, it's become a political thing more than a scientific one, and, those researchers basically buried the data that didn't fit so they could keep their funding. If the experts on this were more united, I'd give them more credence, but, there's lots of climate experts out there that disagree with the one the news media likes to push.

[Taem]

I'm not defending at all what they're doing on the law side, but, the science on this is a bit shaky, too. Too much "if the data doesn't fit the model, make the data go away and don't talk about it" going around to make me happy either way.

Which data is this that is being made to go away?

-Jester

There are time blocks (100s of thousands of years) from some geological eras where the carbon dioxide levels are much higher than anything we have now, but evidence points to temperatures in general being lower than now. However, the climate experts who push the climate change don't bring those up, because they don't fit the model that they're pushing on everyone.

Some of this came out when some emails between researchers were leaked several years ago, talking about data they were going to ignore, because it didn't fit their pet theories. No, I don't have links, but it's not hard to find.

Fact is, it's become a political thing more than a scientific one, and, those researchers basically buried the data that didn't fit so they could keep their funding. If the experts on this were more united, I'd give them more credence, but, there's lots of climate experts out there that disagree with the one the news media likes to push.

Perhaps, I've personally always felt that the climate change was going to happen with or without human interference; we only helped it along. So based on what is known about climate change, it makes sense that if global sea levels do rise, that the coastal cities be thinking about the future even if its, ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. But I forget how our legislative process works not only here, but in the world - legislature through crisis, or, out of sight, out of mind. I hate how the social security debacle has shown how inept the current and former motley crew is we have in office; if they didn't touch that money, or better yet invested it to earn more instead of constantly taking out of social security, then the SS system would not be in dire straights. But nobody can see more than one election term into the future, and that's a fact! And this is what makes this entire law a huge cachinnation of imbeciles because if water levels do rise unexpectedly, they will be fully unprepared. "Ten years from now? Let them worry about it then. I won't be in office that long. One-hundred years from now? Well hell, sunny, I won't even be alive then. Who cares?!? I will have used up all the natural resources I wanted to by then anyhow. Makes no difference to me." It's the unwillingness to look into the future that I'm dismayed about.

[Jester]

There are time blocks (100s of thousands of years) from some geological eras where the carbon dioxide levels are much higher than anything we have now, but evidence points to temperatures in general being lower than now. However, the climate experts who push the climate change don't bring those up, because they don't fit the model that they're pushing on everyone.

Right, the entire field of climate science just ignores entire geological eras?

No serious climate modeler is pushing a theory that says atmospheric CO2 content is the sole determinant of climate. Climate is determined by the interaction hundreds of variables, of which CO2 is only one. Nevertheless, this does not stop us from modelling what would happen were we to increase CO2 dramatically over a short time frame. One can question the efficacy of the models, but the greenhouse effect is real, and increasing CO2 warms the planet. This is not in any meaningful doubt.

Some of this came out when some emails between researchers were leaked several years ago, talking about data they were going to ignore, because it didn't fit their pet theories. No, I don't have links, but it's not hard to find.

Climateaudit has everything, along with great reams of suggestive commentary. I believe what you are referring to is "hide the decline," which (even in its least charitable interpretation) refers to leaving out part of a data set which was known to be a poor indicator - there was a "decline" in tree ring growth in the data they were using for exogenous reasons, rather than climate. From what I've read, they should have just tossed that entire tree ring dataset, but regardless, the "hockey stick" pattern produced by Mann et al. is well-replicated from a variety of independent sources of evidence.

Fact is, it's become a political thing more than a scientific one, and, those researchers basically buried the data that didn't fit so they could keep their funding. If the experts on this were more united, I'd give them more credence, but, there's lots of climate experts out there that disagree with the one the news media likes to push.

This is not a "fact". There are very few climatologists who do not subscribe to the mainstream view of climate change - they may not agree on the details, but the general concepts are consensus. For exceptions, one might look at Judith Curry, or Richard Lindzen, but these are few and far between. Most "big name" climate skeptics are not climatologists, and most have no formal training in any meaningful related fields. Some still manage to make interesting contributions (McKitrick and McIntyre), but they are in a very small minority.

Or, in other words, if you think there isn't much consensus among climate experts, then I don't think you've looked hard enough. Or perhaps, looked too hard in the wrong places.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Perhaps, I've personally always felt that the climate change was going to happen with or without human interference; we only helped it along.

By how much? 3% or is it 50% or is it 250%?

So based on what is known about climate change, it makes sense that if global sea levels do rise, that the coastal cities be thinking about the future even if its, ten, fifty, a hundred years from now.

People rebuild their homes after hurricanes blew them off a sand dune barrier reef, or when they get washed away from the basin of a flood plain. Venice and New Orleans were built in a swamp on purpose. People are arrogant when it comes to where they build.

But I forget how our legislative process works not only here, but in the world - legislature through crisis, or, out of sight, out of mind.

The illusion of politics is that they are looking out for anyone except themselves and their own reelection.

I hate how the social security debacle has shown how inept the current and former motley crew is we have in office; if they didn't touch that money, or better yet invested it to earn more instead of constantly taking out of social security, then the SS system would not be in dire straights. But nobody can see more than one election term into the future, and that's a fact!

Their excessive hot air does contribute to localized climate change at least.

And this is what makes this entire law a huge cachinnation of imbeciles because if water levels do rise unexpectedly, they will be fully unprepared. "Ten years from now? Let them worry about it then. I won't be in office that long. One-hundred years from now? Well hell, sunny, I won't even be alive then. Who cares?!? I will have used up all the natural resources I wanted to by then anyhow. Makes no difference to me." It's the unwillingness to look into the future that I'm dismayed about.

Our skill as a species has always been the ease in which we adapt to current challenges. We are not much different from other mammals in that regard. We have the capacity for prediction and prevention, but we seldom use that capacity and instead continue to cater to our present whims. It's the fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper on a global scale.

[Lissa]

I'm not defending at all what they're doing on the law side, but, the science on this is a bit shaky, too. Too much "if the data doesn't fit the model, make the data go away and don't talk about it" going around to make me happy either way.

Which data is this that is being made to go away?

-Jester

There are time blocks (100s of thousands of years) from some geological eras where the carbon dioxide levels are much higher than anything we have now, but evidence points to temperatures in general being lower than now. However, the climate experts who push the climate change don't bring those up, because they don't fit the model that they're pushing on everyone.

Some of this came out when some emails between researchers were leaked several years ago, talking about data they were going to ignore, because it didn't fit their pet theories. No, I don't have links, but it's not hard to find.

Fact is, it's become a political thing more than a scientific one, and, those researchers basically buried the data that didn't fit so they could keep their funding. If the experts on this were more united, I'd give them more credence, but, there's lots of climate experts out there that disagree with the one the news media likes to push.

Were these eras from 600 Million years ago? A time when they know the Earth was a snowball and only due to volcanoes spewing carbon dioxide into the air that caused a warming that eventually caused acidic (carbonic acid) rainfall over the globe that eventually melted off most of the ice and the Earth then went into the dinosaur eras.

[kandrathe]

Were these eras from 600 Million years ago?

From Wikipedia;
Note the section -- Past variation

This sentence caught my eye -- "Assuming a future absence of human impact influencing releasing of sequestered carbon, the long term natural trend is for the plant life on land to die off altogether, as most of the remaining carbon in the atmosphere becomes sequestered in the Earth."

I read that as... when volcanism subsides due to a slow cooling of the mantle, the trend without human intervention will be for most CO2 to become sequestered over millions of years resulting in the extinction of life. Now, certainly we don't want to swing it the other way either. My sense is that there are plenty of natural actors in the ecosystem that will react to an increase in CO2, resulting in more sequestration. I worry more about the rapid acidification of the oceans.

[RiotInferno]

Just a quick note here:
1) Regardless of people's stance on Climate Change / Global Warming / etc, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Conservation and watching out for the environment is something we should do, regardless of who's right. I've yet to meet anyone who thinks that Global Warming is fake AND that we should just trash the environment.

2) John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, is an adamant denier of Climate Change. Granted, he's a meteorologist, not a climatologist, but he's one-more high profile scientist who thinks it's a bunch of hooey.

3) Perhaps someone here can explain this to me, as this is the part that I don't get:
Experiments and Statistics. I understand sample sizes and data verification. I understand variables and controls. What I don't understand is how Climatologists get data from older times. The Earth is X Bajillion years old. We have hard data from the last century or two.
A) We can't be sure of the accuracy of any data older than when we started paying attention to this, so like the 1970s. There is no way to show that the old hard-data is correct, per today's standards.
B) Ice cores / Tree Rings / etc. There doesn't seem to be much of a control (as in control group ) for their tests. They have a hypothesis of this is how it works, but I don't know if they have the means to prove that it's accurate.

TL;DR: People ( aka Media, Scientists, Gov't ) need to keep regarding Climate Change as a theory, not a hard fact. That being said, we need to look out for the Environment anyway.

[shoju]

I agree with your Tl;DR riot.

I also think that this bill is absolutely ridiculous, and I fear the far reaching implications of it more so than anything.

[Quark]

Gravity is a theory.

[Jester]

2) John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, is an adamant denier of Climate Change. Granted, he's a meteorologist, not a climatologist, but he's one-more high profile scientist who thinks it's a bunch of hooey.

He isn't a scientist, neither by academic qualification nor by professional experience. He has no scientific degrees - his education is in journalism. He has never worked on any part of climate science, either from the empirical or theoretical side.

He is a TV personality. Colour me unimpressed. Even among AGW skeptics, one can find overwhelmingly more qualified experts.

3) Perhaps someone here can explain this to me, as this is the part that I don't get:
Experiments and Statistics. I understand sample sizes and data verification. I understand variables and controls. What I don't understand is how Climatologists get data from older times. The Earth is X Bajillion years old. We have hard data from the last century or two.

A) We can't be sure of the accuracy of any data older than when we started paying attention to this, so like the 1970s. There is no way to show that the old hard-data is correct, per today's standards.

B) Ice cores / Tree Rings / etc. There doesn't seem to be much of a control (as in control group ) for their tests. They have a hypothesis of this is how it works, but I don't know if they have the means to prove that it's accurate.

From what I understand, we have good instrumental temperature data going back into the 19th century, although obviously the coverage is not as good. Climate has always been of interest to scientists, and one does not require a theory of global warming to justify collecting temperature data on different parts of the world.

As for checking, the series can be compared against known (measured) temperatures in more recent times, and also against one another. All climate data is regional, peculiar, and fuzzy, but it would be strange indeed for all of our sources to tell roughly the same temperature story, independently, if they were all idiosyncratically biased.

TL;DR: People ( aka Media, Scientists, Gov't ) need to keep regarding Climate Change as a theory, not a hard fact. That being said, we need to look out for the Environment anyway.

Rather the opposite. The evidence for climate change (that is, the fact that the climate is observably changing) is completely overwhelming. What is in question is *why* - what are the factors (climate forcings) that are causing it to change. What contributes, and in what measure? To what extent are humans the cause of the change (anthropogenesis)? These are theoretical matters - that is, we try to explain the facts with models and concepts that help us to understand and predict.

But perhaps the difficulty is, as Quark rather pithily pointed out, the difference between the colloquial and scientific definitions of "theory" and "fact." Theories do not "become facts." Gravity is still a theory, even though it is uncontroversial.* Theories describe abstract causal relationships, which are then tested with evidence. (This error is so common, wiktionary even has it in the usage notes for the word theory!)

-Jester

*Well, its reconciliation with quantum mechanics obviously isn't. We need a new theory! But that doesn't stop the earth from orbiting the sun, or rocks from falling when you drop them.

[RiotInferno]

2) John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel, is an adamant denier of Climate Change. Granted, he's a meteorologist, not a climatologist, but he's one-more high profile scientist who thinks it's a bunch of hooey.

He isn't a scientist, neither by academic qualification nor by professional experience. He has no scientific degrees - his education is in journalism. He has never worked on any part of climate science, either from the empirical or theoretical side.

He is a TV personality. Colour me unimpressed. Even among AGW skeptics, one can find overwhelmingly more qualified experts.

Point taken. I don't really make a habit of searching out Climate Change skeptics and he's really the only one I know. That being said, one can assume that meteorology wasn't an actual degree back when he was in school and/or he picked up quite a bit of knowledge on the job.

Now, the question of meteorology = hard science, that's a whole 'nother question.

3) Perhaps someone here can explain this to me, as this is the part that I don't get:
Experiments and Statistics. I understand sample sizes and data verification. I understand variables and controls. What I don't understand is how Climatologists get data from older times. The Earth is X Bajillion years old. We have hard data from the last century or two.

A) We can't be sure of the accuracy of any data older than when we started paying attention to this, so like the 1970s. There is no way to show that the old hard-data is correct, per today's standards.

B) Ice cores / Tree Rings / etc. There doesn't seem to be much of a control (as in control group ) for their tests. They have a hypothesis of this is how it works, but I don't know if they have the means to prove that it's accurate.

From what I understand, we have good instrumental temperature data going back into the 19th century, although obviously the coverage is not as good. Climate has always been of interest to scientists, and one does not require a theory of global warming to justify collecting temperature data on different parts of the world.

As for checking, the series can be compared against known (measured) temperatures in more recent times, and also against one another. All climate data is regional, peculiar, and fuzzy, but it would be strange indeed for all of our sources to tell roughly the same temperature story, independently, if they were all idiosyncratically biased.

Understood. What I have problems with is the media portraying it as:
"It's warmer now than it was five THOUSAND years ago. How do we know? Ice Cores." I know there's science behind it. It's just hard to prove that science.

TL;DR: People ( aka Media, Scientists, Gov't ) need to keep regarding Climate Change as a theory, not a hard fact. That being said, we need to look out for the Environment anyway.

Rather the opposite. The evidence for climate change (that is, the fact that the climate is observably changing) is completely overwhelming. What is in question is *why* - what are the factors (climate forcings) that are causing it to change. What contributes, and in what measure? To what extent are humans the cause of the change (anthropogenesis)? These are theoretical matters - that is, we try to explain the facts with models and concepts that help us to understand and predict.

But perhaps the difficulty is, as Quark rather pithily pointed out, the difference between the colloquial and scientific definitions of "theory" and "fact." Theories do not "become facts." Gravity is still a theory, even though it is uncontroversial.* Theories describe abstract causal relationships, which are then tested with evidence. (This error is so common, wiktionary even has it in the usage notes for the word theory!)

-Jester

*Well, its reconciliation with quantum mechanics obviously isn't. We need a new theory! But that doesn't stop the earth from orbiting the sun, or rocks from falling when you drop them.

Yes, the climate is changing. This year we had the mildest winter in recent memory. The questions are the obvious ones: Are we to blame? Is this unnatural?
And yes, I'm super-guilty of misusing Theory. It just feels like the crazy hipness of Climate Change has lead to an explosion of "research" for grant purposes, but that research always falls in line, (for grant purposes).

In the end, I don't feel like we have enough data points to come up with a conclusive model, and anyone (scientifically) who tries to go against the grain is a pariah and ruined academically.

Again, I take the stand of "There's a lot we don't know, but that doesn't mean we should trash the place".

[Jester]

That being said, one can assume that meteorology wasn't an actual degree back when he was in school and/or he picked up quite a bit of knowledge on the job.

Now, the question of meteorology = hard science, that's a whole 'nother question.

If, by "meteorologist," you mean "scientist working in the field of weather," then sure.

But he isn't a meteorologist in that sense. He's the weather guy on the local news. This is what he does: standing in front of a green screen, grinning like a game show host, and showing you whether it will be sunny or rainy tomorrow. Necessary though it may be, that's not science, and there's nothing about that job that teaches you anything relevant about climatology.

In the end, I don't feel like we have enough data points to come up with a conclusive model, and anyone (scientifically) who tries to go against the grain is a pariah and ruined academically.

Really? For those critics who are actually in the field of climate science, they don't seem to be suffering too terribly. Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT. (I'd kill for a named chair at MIT, and if that's what being a pariah is, then sign me up!) Judith Curry is a chair at the Georgia Institute of Technolology. Most other critics are from other fields (notably geology and astrophysics), but seem to be doing just fine.

It's not exactly a popular view, and no doubt their views will come under sharp criticism for their peers. (Not unlike, say, a Marxist in an economics department, or a steady-state universe proponent in astronomy.) But there's a long way between that and being a "pariah," or being "ruined."

-Jester

[RiotInferno]

That being said, one can assume that meteorology wasn't an actual degree back when he was in school and/or he picked up quite a bit of knowledge on the job.

Now, the question of meteorology = hard science, that's a whole 'nother question.

If, by "meteorologist," you mean "scientist working in the field of weather," then sure.

But he isn't a meteorologist in that sense. He's the weather guy on the local news. This is what he does: standing in front of a green screen, grinning like a game show host, and showing you whether it will be sunny or rainy tomorrow. Necessary though it may be, that's not science, and there's nothing about that job that teaches you anything relevant about climatology.

In the end, I don't feel like we have enough data points to come up with a conclusive model, and anyone (scientifically) who tries to go against the grain is a pariah and ruined academically.

Really? For those critics who are actually in the field of climate science, they don't seem to be suffering too terribly. Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT. (I'd kill for a named chair at MIT, and if that's what being a pariah is, then sign me up!) Judith Curry is a chair at the Georgia Institute of Technolology. Most other critics are from other fields (notably geology and astrophysics), but seem to be doing just fine.

It's not exactly a popular view, and no doubt their views will come under sharp criticism for their peers. (Not unlike, say, a Marxist in an economics department, or a steady-state universe proponent in astronomy.) But there's a long way between that and being a "pariah," or being "ruined."

-Jester

Jester,
I'd just like to say thank you for making your points in a manner that doesn't make me feel like a complete idiot. This is one reason why I like this board.

I have been thoroughly enlightened by this. Now if only our Media and Politicians would be as thorough as you. GG.