Predictive Power of Modern Climatological Models

[Stochasty]

Fractal_UK, the more I discuss this with you, the more I come to the conclusion that you simply haven't internalized how slow each of these issues you're talking about will be. You claim that there will be disproportionate impact on the developing world, but do you realize that our concept of "the developing world" might not even be meaningful 100 years from now? You claim there will be millions of people displaced... when? Give me the date. Suppose we have 2 meters of sea level rise over the next 100 years, and assume that population distribution remains relatively stable over that time. Where are the displaced people? What is the date of their displacement? What is the rate of their displacement? How far does each of them have to move to avoid the effects; how quickly does each of them need to move? Give me hard numbers here. You want me to believe there's a potential catastrophe here; give me the hard numbers to back it up. Don't just look at the difference between the map today and the putative map 100 years from now and say "a ha!"

I may have no right to assume that if one region becomes less habitable another will be more so, but you likewise have no reason to assume that that won't be the case. In the absence of evidence, it is at least as likely that the net effects will be beneficial as they will be deleterious. The null hypothesis is that the effects average out, and produce no change. As there is indeed evidence that the Earth is more habitable in warmer climes, this would indicate that the average effect is positive.

As for the comparison between the costs today and the costs in the future - it's not that I think the costs today of all such measures are necessarily large. There are some common sense measures which should be implemented today even were global warming not an issue - shifting to nuclear power being first and foremost of these. Each of these I would support. What I don't support are measures like Cap and Trade or Carbon Taxes designed to force down our CO2 output today without any other consideration on how to replace it. The effects of these measures upon our economy would not be small - it is no joke to say that our economy runs on carbon right now. Each and every spike in the price of oil over the last 50 years has led directly to a recession; the worse the spike, the worse the recession. Government measures to artificially increase the price of CO2 emission are playing a dangerous, dangerous game when it comes to the world economy.

As to your last point: I'm arguing both. There are two primary pillars supporting the notion that we need to reduce carbon emissions. The first is the claim that there will be significant future climate change, as predicted by the climate models. The second is the claim that this change, should it occur, would be deleterious and should be avoided. I think that both of those claims are insufficiently supported.

My original purpose in starting this thread was to discuss the first issue; however, we seem to have been sidetracked onto discussing the second. The point of my arguments over the last few posts were that even if I were to accept your assertion that there would be significant warming, it's still not clear that anything needs to be done. If I failed to make it clear that I was basing my position off of this hypothetical (and if it thus sounded like I had thus changed my original tune), my apologies. Basically, I'm trying to refute a claim that I've heard rather often that goes like this: "even if the models are incorrect, we should act now to reduce CO2 emissions just on the chance that they are right."

To be honest, this is the lesser of the issues in my mind, anyway. I would rather discuss the models, and I will admit that, if someone could demonstrate to me a model with predictive power and show me deleterious effects coming from added CO2 based on that model, I would be far more willing to entertain the notion that we should act than I am right now. Basically, it's a difference between the decision calculus involved in the possibility of a 3 degree rise in global temperature versus the certainty of a 3 degree rise. The expected payout of acting now is a lot higher in the latter case than the former.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Stochasty

[MBobrik]

I would rather discuss the models, and I will admit that, if someone could demonstrate to me a model with predictive power

.

There is no model a skilled ideologue like you could not sweep under the rug under 30 seconds. You wanted models ? You got models. And what did you do ? posted link to an awful denialist site which basically just lobbed any excuse at the climate models it could come up with, regardless whether justified or not.

Edited June 8, 2013 by MBobrik

[Nibb31]

Basically, it's a difference between the decision calculus involved in the possibility of a 3 degree rise in global temperature versus the certainty of a 3 degree rise. The expected payout of acting now is a lot higher in the latter case than the former.

Even if there is a 1% possibility that man-made CO2 production is causing a global temperature rise, shouldn't we err on the side of cautiousness instead of pretending that burning stuff is good?

Let's look at the root cause of this. The only reason that a minority of people in the world oppose the general consensus on climate change is because they don't want to give up on their SUV, their A/C and their general comfort. The fact that this opposition exists only in the US is because that is where the global corporations who control oil and coal have the biggest grip on the political power and the media.

There are many reasons we need to reduce our reliance on hydrocarbons. Climate change is just one of them, but there are many others. If the 8 billion people on Earth each burned as much oil per year as the average american, then it would simply not be sustainable. Pretending otherwise is just a justification for selfishness.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Nibb31

[Fractal_UK]

Fractal_UK, the more I discuss this with you, the more I come to the conclusion that you simply haven't internalized how slow each of these issues you're talking about will be. You claim that there will be disproportionate impact on the developing world, but do you realize that our concept of "the developing world" might not even be meaningful 100 years from now?

While the more I discuss with you, the more it appears that you think that individual consequences happen in a vacuum. If you tweak one parameter, many things change, not just one. One example of this is that you seem to believe that human civilisation need only itself adapt to changing circumstances. In reality, human civilisation is dependent upon not just the circumstances that humans themselves require to live in but the environments that our crops and our livestock live in, as well as the condition of the environment for those species that create the conditions that we require to live in.

To a human, a century might seem like a long time but on evolutionary and geological timescales it is a mote in the speck of eternity. Throughout the Earth's history, global temperature changes of 3 degrees and greater have occured from time to time but have tended to occur over extremely long periods (i.e. millions of years). Historical occurances of temperature changes on this level over a short time period (short in this case meaning 10,000 years+) have generally coincided with mass-extinction events and the subsequent redevelopment of new forms of life over the following millions of years.

Among the most severe of these temperature changes was the Permian-Triassic extinction, in which global temperatures changed by 6 degrees over a period of 10,000 years. This is also Earth's most severe extinction event which caused the extinction of ~96% of marine species and 70% of terresterial vetebrates. This is one of several mass extinction events which may itself have been directly climate related, though the causal links are far from certain. What can be stated fairly safely is that there is certainly a strong correlation between large temperature changes over a short period and large-scale extinction events.

On this basis, I'd like to know why you consider even a 3 degree temperature change over the course of 50-100 years either minor or short-term. I don't think you grasp quite how unprecedented this kind of change over such a short period of time really is.

[MBobrik]

another good description of Stochasty's tactic http://www.ntskeptics.org/1998/1998february/february1998.htm

Copy-paste:

Skepticism and the kettle defense

Editorial by John Blanton

OJ did it. He added a new term to my lexicon.

During the famous trial one of the TV wags was explaining the concept of the "kettle defense." It goes something like this.

A man is suing his neighbor. He claims in court that the neighbor borrowed a kettle from him and returned it damaged. He wants the neighbor to pay reparations.

The neighbor offers his defense in three parts: 1) "I never borrowed the kettle." 2) "It was already damaged when I got it." 3) "It was in perfect condition when I returned it."

Any one claim by itself, successfully defended, would be an adequate defense. When used in tandem like this, each new claim tends to refute previous claims, undermining the defendant's whole case.

What's the connection? When this pattern pops up in an argument that argument tends to lose some of its luster. I'm a skeptical kind of guy anyhow, but the kettle defense tends to make me even more skeptical.

The creationists (read "anti-evolutionists") do this. 1) "All species started out just as they are now, and there haven't been any changes. 2) "Random mutations couldn't possibly produce all of these improvementsâ€â€there must have been some supernatural power." 3) "These improvements produced by natural selection haven't really produced any new species."

Now I'm hearing it from the anti-environmentalists. Before proceeding let me define some terms. Anti-environmentalists are not necessarily people who oppose the environment. These are not the "Sahara Club," some who, perhaps facetiously, propose cutting down all the redwoods and paving over with concrete. I am talking about those who have an immediate economic interest in refuting the claims of the pro-environment political lobby.

Here is one example: 1) "CFCs can't harm the ozone layer." 2) "Maybe they could harm the ozone layer, but they apparently aren't." 3) "OK, some decrease in the ozone layer is occurring, but CFCs aren't doing it. It's being caused by natural sources of chlorine." 4) "Actually, this decrease in the ozone layer doesn't seem to be doing anybody any harm."

I've been studying the English language for several years, and I think I know what this is saying: "I don't want to stop making/using CFCs because that's going to cost me money."

Here's another: 1) "There's no way adding CO2 to the atmosphere will produce global warming." 2) "Human activities are not adding enough CO2to the atmosphere to produce much global warming." 3) "Natural sources are the cause of all this CO2." 4) "Actually, more CO2in the atmosphere is helpfulâ€â€it makes plants grow." 5) "Hey, global warming will forestall the next ice age, which the climatologists were predicting earlier." To this I might add a suggested 6) "I always wanted ocean front property in Orlando anyhow."

A few Sunday's ago I heard arguments 4 and 5 being advanced by an oil company executive on a news show. He sells products that routinely put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and proposed remedies are going to change his company's business drastically. He's trying to make as many points as he can in case one of them can't be supported. Actually, point 4 demonstrates he does have reason to worry. More recently, as seen on TV, a scientist studying an imminent volcano eruption in the Northwest was showing off a large section of forest killed off by CO2 seeping from the ground. Not CO, not H2S, but CO2 is killing the trees.

Of course, there is a lot of silliness being advanced in the name of science these days, and it needs to be refuted by people who really know what they are talking about. I am glad to see every now and then knowledgeable people taking time off from their real jobs and standing in front of a camera explaining the facts and separating the wheat from the chaff. And they don't have to use the kettle defense.

(As I write this it's 62 degrees outside. Of course it's January. At night.)

Edited June 9, 2013 by MBobrik

[tek_604]

I'd also like to suggest the OP read up on Mass Extinction Events. Especially the Permian–Triassic extinction event. When rocks from the time have been analysed, the extinction seems to revolve around a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. This raised temperatures (as you can see also by reading up on the Carbon Cycle, which also helps the temperature cycles which have been analysed from Antarctic Ice dating back I don't know how far), which lead to knock on effects on land, and in the oceans.

Now, if you take the Carbon Cycle into account, global warming makes perfect sense. What we're doing, is digging up carbon deposits, laid down millions of years ago, and adding it to the current system. Just using simple logic, the amount of Carbon in the biosphere today is rising, purely down to what we're doing when we're digging it up and burning it.

Oh well, that's my simplistic view anyway. Seems logical, and doesn't need to have such a complicated explanation.

[magnemoe]

I'd also like to suggest the OP read up on Mass Extinction Events. Especially the Permian–Triassic extinction event. When rocks from the time have been analysed, the extinction seems to revolve around a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. This raised temperatures (as you can see also by reading up on the Carbon Cycle, which also helps the temperature cycles which have been analysed from Antarctic Ice dating back I don't know how far), which lead to knock on effects on land, and in the oceans.

Now, if you take the Carbon Cycle into account, global warming makes perfect sense. What we're doing, is digging up carbon deposits, laid down millions of years ago, and adding it to the current system. Just using simple logic, the amount of Carbon in the biosphere today is rising, purely down to what we're doing when we're digging it up and burning it.

Oh well, that's my simplistic view anyway. Seems logical, and doesn't need to have such a complicated explanation.

On the other hand the age of the dinosaurs was far warmer than anything after the ice ages, think temperatures was close to 10 degree warmer.

Condition was stable for 100 million years, continents was also much more like they are today than 250 million years ago giving more similar climate.

The real killer during the P-T event was probably volcanism, might be helped by an impact on the other side of the Siberian trap.

The Siberian traps was no ordinary volcano, more like an moon sea covering two million square kilometers. I guess this had some impact on the environment, yes the impact on the other side would contain more energy.

[MBobrik]

On the other hand the age of the dinosaurs was far warmer than anything after the ice ages

.

It is said, that it is not the fall that kills you, but the > 100 G lithobraking.

.

Maybe the stable state after 3 deg warming would be quite livable. But the ecosystems collapse because of too rapid change not so much...

[magnemoe]

.

It is said, that it is not the fall that kills you, but the > 100 G lithobraking.

.

Maybe the stable state after 3 deg warming would be quite livable. But the ecosystems collapse because of too rapid change not so much...

Quite true, end of the ice age caused an die-off. However it was not close to an extinction event.

However the Siberian traps gives an very plausible explanation to the extinction something magnitudes more devastating, the co2 increase would come because of the insane amount of volcanism, but it would be an secondary effect the real killer would be all the smoke who would block out sunlight for years.

[Stochasty]

Historical occurances of temperature changes on this level over a short time period (short in this case meaning 10,000 years+) have generally coincided with mass-extinction events and the subsequent redevelopment of new forms of life over the following millions of years.

Onsets of glaciation during the past 3 million years happened over decadal timescales and involved temperature changes on the order of 5 degrees C. Not all of them coincided mass extinctions; in fact, there were only two extinction events within this period, neither of which were caused by climate change. (The end-Pliocene extinction has been attributed to a nearby supernova, and the causes of the Quartenary extinction are unknown but may be attributable to the spread of modern humans.)

For all prior extinctions, your argument is unsubstantiated, because we have no means of determining climate changes with sufficient time resolution. There have been no major extinction events conclusively linked to climate change, and for each of the extinction events for which we do have conclusive evidence regarding causation, climate change was not the culprit (although climate change may have been associated with the event that caused the extinction, such as for the Chixulub impact or the eruption of the Siberian traps).

As usual, you are suggesting that there is much more scientific certainty for your claims than in fact exists.

Regarding Nibbs argument that even if there were a 1% chance of a catastrophic event we should prepare for it: yes, but it depends on a number of things. First, you have to establish that the event in question is truly catastrophic - this is why it's a good idea to buy major medical insurance - but you must be willing to acknowledge that the sacrifice you are making now is larger than the expected payout, so if the event in question is not a catastrophe then it's a raw deal. Second, you have to establish that there really is a chance that what you claim will come true - vague arguments based on unsubstantiated models won't cut it, because I can produce an unsubstantiated model that will literally predict anything I want it to predict (getting such models through peer review is harder, but not impossible). Third, you have to establish that your preparations will actually work - no point building a Death Star to put down the rebel alliance if they can just send an X-Wing in to destroy it.

Now, I'm not saying that I think we should keep burning carbon forever. Believe it or not, I actually buy the argument that we are making an uncontrolled climate experiment with unknown results, and that all things being equal this is not a good thing. But, all things are not equal. Our economy is dominated by the fossil fuel industry. Energy costs, transportation costs, manufacturing costs - literally the entire physical part of the world economy - will be affected adversely by unwise attempts to artificially curb CO2 emission (I include CO2 taxes and Cap and Trade within this category of unwise attempts). There are many measures we could take (and, indeed, are already taking) which would reduce CO2 emission without adversely affecting the economy - the foremost of these would be a public awareness campaign that nukes are not actually scary, and, for the US, an overhaul of the EPA to make it easier for power companies to build new plants (which would allow them to phase out less efficient older ones). Neither of these particular measures has much political traction, though, and the measure that do have political traction are nothing more than naked power grabs by one special interest or another.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Stochasty

[Fractal_UK]

Onsets of glaciation during the past 3 million years happened over decadal timescales and involved temperature changes on the order of 5 degrees C. Not all of them coincided mass extinctions; in fact, there were only two extinction events within this period, neither of which were caused by climate change. (The end-Pliocene extinction has been attributed to a nearby supernova, and the causes of the Quartenary extinction are unknown but may be attributable to the spread of modern humans.)

For all prior extinctions, your argument is unsubstantiated, because we have no means of determining climate changes with sufficient time resolution. There have been no major extinction events conclusively linked to climate change, and for each of the extinction events for which we do have conclusive evidence regarding causation, climate change was not the culprit (although climate change may have been associated with the event that caused the extinction, such as for the Chixulub impact or the eruption of the Siberian traps).

As usual, you are suggesting that there is much more scientific certainty for your claims than in fact exists.

Actually I was quite clear about the lack of scientific certainty of causation in relation to climate change and mass extinction events. Only the most flagrant misreading of my commentary could lead you to make the point you do here, further questioning your objectivity in this matter.

Regardless, as far as I can tell, the evidence for the supernova link to the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary marine extinction comes from this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0201018.pdf. It's an interesting paper but the evidence for these supernovae as a firm cause of this particular extinction does not appear more conclusive than the many extinction events linked with climate change. Note from the text of the paper:

"A coincidence in time between the SN expected to have strongest effects on the biosphere and the Pleistocene-Pliocene extinction, would strongly support the existence of a link between both events"

Such a coincidence would indeed lend support to the idea but as far as I can determine has so far not been demonstrated. Therefore it is disingenuous to suggest that the causes of this extinction are more firmly established than many others.

[MBobrik]

good article about this with lots of links http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/06/11/climate_change_denial_zombies_ams_president_marshall_shepherd_talks_global.html

[magnemoe]

good article about this with lots of links http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/06/11/climate_change_denial_zombies_ams_president_marshall_shepherd_talks_global.html

Except that even IPCC agree that the world has not become warmer the last 10-15 years, is IPCC wrong?

The models did not catch this, my conclusion is that the models are not good enough.

The hockey stick was debunked even before the last 10 years stable temperature. Has been silent about it.

In short this guy did not come up with anything relevant, just the same old: the deniers are idiots.

I have no information about the antarctic ice and its also pretty irrelevant, Antarctica is to cold for ice to melt. The main factor is how much snowfall it gets, this is affected by climate and it don't snow if its very cold so an warmer Antarctica will probably get more ice. The ice will then get pushed back into the sea some hundreds year later. The amount of ice dumped in the sea affect sea levels, not how much water ice melts.

----

Now a few other issues: There is no consensus, yes its claimed everybody agree but the gap in predictions between the doomsayers Gore, Hansen, Greenpeace and IPCC is far larger than if we get cooler climate at 2100. However the doomsayers has stopped talking about 2030 and two meters increase in sea level as they did 10 years ago as it become to stupid 17 years before so the gap might be smaller.

This is not an scientific discussion, its an political. No discussion about looking into this problem, yes co2 is an greenhouse gas.

However its political as the discussion is not about using some pocket money billions on satellites, supercomputers and distributed sensors to figure out that is happening.

Its about if its smart using an significant part of the planetary GNP on reducing co2 emissions.

Anyway its unrealistic, all the climate politic so far has had two effects, it has increased governmental income because of co2 taxes and it make people feel good. Yes you get some secondary effects like shifting away from coal who reduce local pollution. (On the other hand diesel cars and burning garbage reduce co2 while increase local pollution. )

Kyoto had an hardly measurable effect on co2.

To make things far worse, China and many other countries will endorse any program who shift industry from the west to China, it reduce co2 emissions in the west but probably increase them globally however it helps the Chinese economy who is an important goal for China. Russia agreed on the first Kyoto agreement as they was shutting down lot of old soviet industry and got money. Now they build up and is naturally not interested anymore.

To make things totally impossible. We know one way of reducing co2 emissions a lot, pretty cheap and within 10 years: nuclear power, switch from coal and gas to nuclear. however the greens hate it with passion. Any politician serious about global warming has to be friends with the greens pissing them off and he will lose loads of voters.

[MBobrik]

@ magnemoe

Thank you for demonstrating the very zombie arguments, that simply won't die no matter how many thousand times they are refuted, the article was about. Despite the fact that the very article linked to their refutations, they have risen up from the dead once more and shambling on in your post.

[magnemoe]

@ magnemoe

Thank you for demonstrating the very zombie arguments, that simply won't die no matter how many thousand times they are refuted, the article was about. Despite the fact that the very article linked to their refutations, they have risen up from the dead once more and shambling on in your post.

I just watched the video, I did not check the sources as the video was so bad, they had some interesting data but ocean heating does not explain why temperature has flatten out if we use thermodynamic, yes it can be explained by other factors but none are proven. This shows an weakness in the models.

Anyway, this is an political discussion not an scientific.

And we should pray that I'm right: where is an global warming however the effect is far weaker than IPCC predict.

Why, none of the politicians will do anything. Obama has not touched it and he will not, next president is probably an republican.

Europe will not do anything except symbol politic.

Reason is that it will be extremely expensive and include very unpopular decisions, all mainstream politicians know this, result is that global warming has almost disappeared from the news media.

[MBobrik]

And the zombie shambles on.

.

but ocean heating does not explain why temperature has flatten out if we use thermodynamic, yes it can be explained by other factors but none are proven. This shows an weakness in the models.

.

What do you mean none proven ? solar activity is measured every minute, and so is volcanism. How can that not be proven ? You mean something like "we are just watching the sun in real time, but should we really trust our lying eyes ?"

.

Anyway, this is an political discussion not an scientific.

.

Wrong. Validity of scientific theories is not a political question.

.

Reason is that it will be extremely expensive and include very unpopular decisions

.

Yeah, and collapse of the ecosystems we need for our agriculture is ultra super cheap. A few billions will starve, no big deal, humans are cheap...

.

.

.

Prediction, nothing of I wrote will stick, the zombie army will just keep going as usual.

Edited June 14, 2013 by MBobrik

[PakledHostage]

I just watched the video, I did not check the sources as the video was so bad, they had some interesting data but ocean heating does not explain why temperature has flatten out if we use thermodynamic,

I think we all agree, no matter which side of the argument we're on, that there's room for improvement in the climate models. You might be onto something here though! Maybe if climate scientists incorporated thermodynamics into their climate models, they'd make better predictions! I'll leave it to you to suggest it; it’s your idea. Dr Sheperd's Facebook and twitter accounts both show up when you Google his name.

You mean something like "we are just watching the sun in real time, but should we really trust our lying eyes ?"

Thanks… Now I’ve got that Eagles song stuck in my head

Edited June 15, 2013 by PakledHostage

[Stochasty]

Pak, in case you're interested, I ran into two very interesting essays recently written by a computational physicist at Duke discussing some of the issues you raised earlier in the thread about the nature of computer modelling. Links here and here.

[Fractal_UK]

Pak, in case you're interested, I ran into two very interesting essays recently written by a computational physicist at Duke discussing some of the issues you raised earlier in the thread about the nature of computer modelling. Links here and here.

By "essays", I presume you mean "collections of baseless ramblings?" The arguments centre around a number of descriptions of methods that the author suggests could be used to manipulate climate science without actually providing any examples of any cases where such things have occured or who might have actually done so. It's almost like it's easier to invent your own arguments and then refute those rather than to actually tackle a real example. Oh wait, it is.

[MBobrik]

By "essays", I presume you mean "collections of baseless ramblings?" The arguments centre around a number of descriptions of methods that the author suggests could be used to manipulate climate science without actually providing any examples of any cases where such things have occured or who might have actually done so. It's almost like it's easier to invent your own arguments and then refute those rather than to actually tackle a real example. Oh wait, it is.

.

Lots of irrelevant details, to cover the fact that it simply amounts to insinuating that the climatologists don't know how to handle parameter spaces of their models ( or do it wrong on purpose ), without providing a shred of evidence that this is in fact the case. All written by a guy, who again, did not show a single bit of evidence, that he in fact has deep enough understanding of the models used in climatology, to make such accusations.

[Stochasty]

The arguments centre around a number of descriptions of methods that the author suggests could be used to manipulate climate science without actually providing any examples of any cases where such things have occured or who might have actually done so.

The main point he's arguing against - averaging results of multiple models to produce a "projection" - is used by the IPCC, and had you done any more than reading the essay looking for ways to scoff at it you would know that.

Nevertheless, that's not the interesting part of his post. The interesting part is his discussion of the history of modelling the electronic structure of the Carbon atom and how, even today, we are forced to resort to semi-empirical models because we simply don't know how to solve the equations of the real physical system (despite the fact that all of the physics - at least at this scale - is known). These models have known, unphysical, fudge factors designed to make the output of the model conform with data.

Molecular dynamics simulations - even for simulations of large proteins - are vastly simpler than trying to simulate the full climate of the Earth, and yet even they are fraught with peril. The equations of the dynamics of inter-atom electron binding may not be the same as the Navier-Stokes equations, but the difficulties of modelling complex, non-linear systems are the same. Ignore his arguments if you wish, but it is not his ignorance you are displaying when you do so.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Stochasty

[MBobrik]

The equations of the dynamics of inter-atom electron binding may not be the same as the Navier-Stokes equations, but the difficulties of modelling complex, non-linear systems are the same.

.

So we can imagine an angry climatologist to do the same hatchet job on molecular simulations like the denialists do on climate simulations :

.

"Exact analytical solutions of the equations involved, are either not known or not possible at all. And the numerical solutions got all sorts of fudge factors in them to work, therefore we can dismiss the entire area as post-hoc shoehorning of hypotheses to data. So when our simulations show that the new drug will slowly clog up ion channels in the brain and kill the patient, let's ignore it and go straight on to selling it. After all, it would be too expensive to stop and redesign it now."

.

Would a sane doctor interested in the wellbeing of his patients accept such "reasoning" ?

Edited June 16, 2013 by MBobrik

[tavert]

Not super relevant to a non-physicist, honestly. Modeling is hard, got it. Scientists of any kind are all well-aware of that. Do organizations like the IPCC do the greatest job of presenting these inherent scientific challenges to non-scientific audiences like policymakers or the general public? No, but I don't think that's a solvable problem (maybe if we demanded higher standards of basic science knowledge to be considered a functional member of modern society, but that's unfortunately unrealistic).

The argument that poster, and you, and many other doubters make that bugs the hell out of me is the argument of motivation. Climate scientists are very smart people, with skills that are very marketable in better-paying fields than scientific research. They aren't manipulating results to improve their funding prospects, and they have no more or less vested interest in global policy decisions about carbon emissions than any other resident of the Earth. They are scientists doing legitimate science, just like any other field, and to make baseless insinuations otherwise is insulting. I don't understand what could ever make one so jaded to feel that way.

[Fractal_UK]

Nevertheless, that's not the interesting part of his post. The interesting part is his discussion of the history of modelling the electronic structure of the Carbon atom and how, even today, we are forced to resort to semi-empirical models because we simply don't know how to solve the equations of the real physical system (despite the fact that all of the physics - at least at this scale - is known). These models have known, unphysical, fudge factors designed to make the output of the model conform with data.

Molecular dynamics simulations - even for simulations of large proteins - are vastly simpler than trying to simulate the full climate of the Earth, and yet even they are fraught with peril. The equations of the dynamics of inter-atom electron binding may not be the same as the Navier-Stokes equations, but the difficulties of modelling complex, non-linear systems are the same. Ignore his arguments if you wish, but it is not his ignorance you are displaying when you do so.

I don't require an introduction to the computational modelling of quantum systems, it's what I have been doing every day for the last several years so you'll forgive me if this part of his post seems rather mundane, though I'm not entirely sure what is so surprising to you. The vast majority of physical problems and an utterly overwhelming proportion of physically interesting problems can't be solved exactly and we have to use various approximations and various assumptions to try and simulate and understand these complex systems. Each of these techniques having varying degrees of mathematical rigour.

The critical factor in such schemes is understanding under which conditions these models are valid, where they perform well, where they perform adaquetely, where they perform badly, etc. It does not make sense to imply that there exists some kind of arbitrary cut-off whereby "Model X" represents the most complex simulation that we can attain meaningful results from and a more complex "Model Y" would be useless. In reality, extracting certain, more general, predictions from Model Y may actually be simpler than extracting more in-depth data from Model X, it all depends on the parameters of the simulation and the schemes that are utilised.

[Stochasty]

The argument that poster, and you, and many other doubters make that bugs the hell out of me is the argument of motivation. Climate scientists are very smart people, with skills that are very marketable in better-paying fields than scientific research. They aren't manipulating results to improve their funding prospects, and they have no more or less vested interest in global policy decisions about carbon emissions than any other resident of the Earth. They are scientists doing legitimate science, just like any other field, and to make baseless insinuations otherwise is insulting. I don't understand what could ever make one so jaded to feel that way.

This is a good point, but one that I vehemently disagree with. However, I don't know how to convince you or anyone else of the reasons behind this disagreement.

I could start by pointing out that certain well known names in climate science - Dr. James Hansen, for instance - are also climate activists with well-known biases. I could point out that certain fields of climate science - paleoclimate proxy reconstructions, for instance - are plagued by bad statistical methods, and that the most well-known result of one of the biggest names in the field - Dr. Michael Mann - has been thoroughly discredited and were he in any other field he would have been forced to retract his most well-known paper. I can point out that there is evidence (granted, evidence based on stolen emails) that a small group of influential climate scientists have intentionally manipulated the peer review system. I can point out that the singularly most influential political climate change organization - the IPCC - is controlled by people (Rajendra Pachauri being the best example) who have a vested, monetary interest in seeing carbon control measures put into place. I can point out that grants for funding climate change research are invariably given to those who favor the anthropocentric climate change side of the argument (try to get funding to disprove anthropocentric climate change if you don't believe me on this one).

However, none of those (except for the bit about manipulation of peer review, which is the one that sticks in my craw the most) is proof that there is bad climate science going on, or that (as you put it) climate scientists aren't doing legitimate science. You are probably right that, in general, they aren't manipulating results fraudulently (although I do happen to know of one case that should probably be considered out-right fraud, committed by one of the actors I mentioned above). However, you are wrong to suggest that they aren't manipulating results to improve their funding prospects.

I highly suggest that you go back and reread the part of the second essay where he talks about the "fishbowl ecology" of the modern scientific community. I can tell you, from first hand experience, that he is absolutely correct on this. That is how modern science funding works, both in America and abroad. Science, except in specific cases with direct application to the real world, is not funded by corporations or private individuals. It is funded by governments, at their politically motivated whims, and we scientists have strikingly little say in what actually gets funded. Right now, in the US and in Europe, the pro-anthropogenic climate change side has won the political debate and is in control of the distribution of funds; in China, because the Chinese have a vested interest in coal, the opposite is the case. This is why there is no funding for climate change skeptics in the US, but the Chinese Academy of Science has begun to fund them.

How this relates to manipulation of data: if you happen to find a result that you know contradicts the going orthodoxy and is likely to negatively impact your future funding chances, whatever you wind up doing with that data you do not publish it. So far as I can tell, this is the reason why the full Law Dome ice core data set was not published for more than a decade after it was taken (only portions of it were published), despite the fact that it offers the highest resolution data yet collected. This is the biggest problem with the intersection between politics and science; the modern science establishment only really works well when the people who control the purse strings do not have a vested interest in the results.

Hell, this suppression of negative results happens even when there's no money at all riding on the outcome. Search the literature look for papers which report "no statistically significant result was found." You'll find that these papers, when they occur, occur only in response to previously published papers which had found a statistically significant result for a similar investigation. It's not sexy to publish "no result" papers, even when "no result" is the most common outcome, and if you happen to publish a "no result" paper that steps on the toes of someone who cared you can be in trouble down the line.

With a few exceptions, I don't really fault those involved. I happen to believe the flaw is systemic, and has nothing to do with the individual scientists. I also happen to believe that this systemic flaw is worse for the overall health of the science industry than some nefarious conspiracy could ever be.

Academic politics sucks balls. It is no secret that, once you have managed to obtain a PhD, actual ability as a scientist is not the primary contributor to a successful career. What matters more than anything else is who you know and who knows you; in any given field there are far fewer research positions available than there are qualified applicants, and the pool of potential bosses is extremely limited. Also, everyone already established in the field already knows everyone else, so prospective scientists can't really afford to piss off any of them or they risk a short end to their careers. This, as expected, makes for a disturbing amount of groupthink and nepotism. (Hell, it's no real secret that my own research job is entirely the product of nepotism. I once calculated that there are fewer than ten jobs in the entire world that make use of my particular specialty; the only reason that I happen to have landed one of them was that, as a grad. student, I got to know and work with several influential people in the field, one of whom is now my boss.)

What does all of this add up to? Nothing conclusive. But, if you want the reason why I feel so jaded, there it is.

I can't really convince you that feeling jaded about the state of science - especially climate science - is the right way to feel, but I can assure you that the easiest way to gain that feeling is to become a scientist yourself.