4 ms·

> I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models") but it is not

by stouset 10y ago

> I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models") but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest. Based on what? I'm asking seriously. I assume you're not a climate scientist. So, 95%+ of climate scientists (and realistically, more than that) believe that the threat is dire and also believe that our current models are accurate within reasonable margins of error. Given this, isn't it hubris to think you know more about this topic than they? Consider Dunning-Kruger. The people who've spent their lives studying the climate are the ones most skeptical of their own understanding of the problem, and yet they're also the ones sounding the alarm as loud as they can. What's the tipping point where you decide to accept the findings of essentially everyone in the field?

nice1 10y ago
Why do you say 95%? Where is that number from? My own estimate is 15%, if you substract people who make these claims only so as to get grant funding which they would not get otherwise.
sien 10y ago
The IPCC says: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." That is very different from 95% of climate scientists think that the threat is dire. The IPCC says that perhaps 51% of the increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gasses AND other anthropogenic forcings, you're saying something quite different. That is the consensus.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire). Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...
  - sien 10y ago
    The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II has concluded that global warming of 2.5˚C would cost the equivalent to losing between 0.2-2.0% of annual income. Again, the actual consensus on damage is lower than what people imagine and scenarios propagated in grey literature by Environmental organisations.
    - stouset 10y ago
      That cost is primarily borne by those in undeveloped regions, where 0.2-2.0% of average global annual income can easily equal >= 100% of local income. Further, from the report (emphasis theirs): > It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. It's extremely disingenuous to provide the 0.2-2.0% figure without the massive footnote that this is a stark underestimate.
      - sien 10y ago
        Also the benefit of electricity is greatest when brought to places with low levels of development.
- niels_olson 10y ago
  stouset didn't cite the IPCC. While that admits the possiblity that they implicitly referred to the IPCC, there are many other sources of variables in the climate debate that are in the 95% range. The mere fact that one is 95% does not exclude the possiblity that others are 95%. Thus the most likely situation here is that you constructed a strawman in your mind, and implicitly argued against it.
- karmelapple 10y ago
  "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." From http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
  - dmfdmf 10y ago
    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists funded by the government agree: The government should fund more climate research" FTFY. I am joking but I think there is a serious credibility issue here. I forget who but some famous science researcher (not in climate research) once said that the conclusion of every research paper is, more funding is needed. How does that institutionalized mindset impact objectivity and who is paying for most of the research today? As I mentioned this is not an overt policy or strategy but just the way things work out once the government takes over funding science research. Read Rand on "The Establishing of the Establishment" for a clear discussion of how it works insidiously to corrupt even an honest man. If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man. Moreover, the qualifier "peer-reviewed" is one of the standards being undercut by government funded science. If all your peers have to "go along to get along" then the independence of their review has to be questioned. There was the email leaks a few years back where it was revealed that climate researchers were publicly telling other researchers who disagreed with the methods or conclusions to publish in peer-reviewed journals if they wanted to be heard. But privately, through back channels and political pull, they got papers spiked and opponents blackballed and threatened boycotts of journals that published any "anti" papers. This is not science, it is politics.
    - stouset 10y ago
      > If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man. This sort of problem has historically corrected itself[1]. Unfortunately for us, with regard to the climate, the numbers keep "correcting" themself in the wrong direction. [1]: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
dmfdmf 10y ago
> Based on what? I'm asking seriously. I have used first-principle, space/time discrete models solving the mass and energy equations related to nuclear reactors and reactor fuel during transients (got my MSME in this area). The climate models are of the same type. I am not discounting the researcher's expertise but I am skeptical of some of the assumptions and methodology (of what I have read) used to create models that can actually be solved on today's computers. This is a huge constraint and the model designers have to make compromises to fit the problem into today's computational resources. They are trying to model the whole earth. To create solvable models the researchers have to use large space elements (of order 1KM^3) and averaged energy inputs (primarily the sun) to keep the time steps up. Such models are notoriously sensitive to such inputs and assumptions. So I am skeptical that we have not only a complete understanding of the climate but the computer power to do the job and make reliable predictions with any confidence. In the nuclear business we struggled to get meaningful results from modeling just 15cm of a fuel bundle during a transient. I think the climate is at least an order of magnitude more complex than 15cm of a fuel bundle and we don't fully understand the climate and how it works. In contrast, we had all the design measurements, test data, materials properties of the fuel, cladding, coolant, heat rates, etc as input to reactor fuel models and it was still very difficult. Regarding test data, the conservation of mass and energy equations only get you so far as there are many physical processes and phenomenon that we don't really understand and that can't be solved analytically (cf. Navier-Stokes equation on the Clay Math Inst. list) and yet the model results are very sensitive to your assumptions and inputs regarding highly non-linear effects like turbulence, viscosity, phase transitions, etc. and their impact on energy flows. To be clear, I am skeptical but not a skeptic regarding computer models, they have their use. But extrapolating results out decades is almost certainly fraught with error. In the end, eventually man will have to control the climate if we want to survive so I am a supporter (of non-govt funded) climate research. My bigger concern is that the level of scaremongering on this issue is such that a staffer stormed out of a DNC meeting claiming he would be dead in 40 years due to global warming because the Dems lost the election. My fear is that such fears will lead to an environmental dictatorship to force people to sacrifice, not for the fatherland this time, but for mother earth. > Consider Dunning-Kruger. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12918362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12918362

by stouset 10y ago

nice1 10y ago

Why do you say 95%? Where is that number from? My own estimate is 15%, if you substract people who make these claims only so as to get grant funding which they would not get otherwise.

sien 10y ago

The IPCC says: "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." That is very different from 95% of climate scientists think that the threat is dire. The IPCC says that perhaps 51% of the increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gasses AND other anthropogenic forcings, you're saying something quite different. That is the consensus.

sdenton4 10y ago
Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire). Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...
- sien 10y ago
  The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II has concluded that global warming of 2.5˚C would cost the equivalent to losing between 0.2-2.0% of annual income. Again, the actual consensus on damage is lower than what people imagine and scenarios propagated in grey literature by Environmental organisations.
  - stouset 10y ago
    That cost is primarily borne by those in undeveloped regions, where 0.2-2.0% of average global annual income can easily equal >= 100% of local income. Further, from the report (emphasis theirs): > It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. It's extremely disingenuous to provide the 0.2-2.0% figure without the massive footnote that this is a stark underestimate.
    - sien 10y ago
      Also the benefit of electricity is greatest when brought to places with low levels of development.
niels_olson 10y ago
stouset didn't cite the IPCC. While that admits the possiblity that they implicitly referred to the IPCC, there are many other sources of variables in the climate debate that are in the 95% range. The mere fact that one is 95% does not exclude the possiblity that others are 95%. Thus the most likely situation here is that you constructed a strawman in your mind, and implicitly argued against it.
karmelapple 10y ago
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." From http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
- dmfdmf 10y ago
  "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists funded by the government agree: The government should fund more climate research" FTFY. I am joking but I think there is a serious credibility issue here. I forget who but some famous science researcher (not in climate research) once said that the conclusion of every research paper is, more funding is needed. How does that institutionalized mindset impact objectivity and who is paying for most of the research today? As I mentioned this is not an overt policy or strategy but just the way things work out once the government takes over funding science research. Read Rand on "The Establishing of the Establishment" for a clear discussion of how it works insidiously to corrupt even an honest man. If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man. Moreover, the qualifier "peer-reviewed" is one of the standards being undercut by government funded science. If all your peers have to "go along to get along" then the independence of their review has to be questioned. There was the email leaks a few years back where it was revealed that climate researchers were publicly telling other researchers who disagreed with the methods or conclusions to publish in peer-reviewed journals if they wanted to be heard. But privately, through back channels and political pull, they got papers spiked and opponents blackballed and threatened boycotts of journals that published any "anti" papers. This is not science, it is politics.
  - stouset 10y ago
    > If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man. This sort of problem has historically corrected itself[1]. Unfortunately for us, with regard to the climate, the numbers keep "correcting" themself in the wrong direction. [1]: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

dmfdmf 10y ago

> Based on what? I'm asking seriously. I have used first-principle, space/time discrete models solving the mass and energy equations related to nuclear reactors and reactor fuel during transients (got my MSME in this area). The climate models are of the same type. I am not discounting the researcher's expertise but I am skeptical of some of the assumptions and methodology (of what I have read) used to create models that can actually be solved on today's computers. This is a huge constraint and the model designers have to make compromises to fit the problem into today's computational resources. They are trying to model the whole earth. To create solvable models the researchers have to use large space elements (of order 1KM^3) and averaged energy inputs (primarily the sun) to keep the time steps up. Such models are notoriously sensitive to such inputs and assumptions. So I am skeptical that we have not only a complete understanding of the climate but the computer power to do the job and make reliable predictions with any confidence. In the nuclear business we struggled to get meaningful results from modeling just 15cm of a fuel bundle during a transient. I think the climate is at least an order of magnitude more complex than 15cm of a fuel bundle and we don't fully understand the climate and how it works. In contrast, we had all the design measurements, test data, materials properties of the fuel, cladding, coolant, heat rates, etc as input to reactor fuel models and it was still very difficult. Regarding test data, the conservation of mass and energy equations only get you so far as there are many physical processes and phenomenon that we don't really understand and that can't be solved analytically (cf. Navier-Stokes equation on the Clay Math Inst. list) and yet the model results are very sensitive to your assumptions and inputs regarding highly non-linear effects like turbulence, viscosity, phase transitions, etc. and their impact on energy flows. To be clear, I am skeptical but not a skeptic regarding computer models, they have their use. But extrapolating results out decades is almost certainly fraught with error. In the end, eventually man will have to control the climate if we want to survive so I am a supporter (of non-govt funded) climate research. My bigger concern is that the level of scaremongering on this issue is such that a staffer stormed out of a DNC meeting claiming he would be dead in 40 years due to global warming because the Dems lost the election. My fear is that such fears will lead to an environmental dictatorship to force people to sacrifice, not for the fatherland this time, but for mother earth. > Consider Dunning-Kruger. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12918362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12918362