4 ms·

But don't the climate models that predict global warming take into effect the ocean's heat absorption and the resulting ice melt and the resulting change in the

by gwright 13y ago

But don't the climate models that predict global warming take into effect the ocean's heat absorption and the resulting ice melt and the resulting change in the earth's albedo and so on? I know it is complicated but the 'conventional wisdom' has been that the best climate models take all these feedback mechanisms into consideration and predict a catastrophic increase in temperatures and that the science is 'settled' on this. We've been told over and over again that the models are trustworthy and beyond criticism. All the radical regulatory and economic policy recommendations are based on these models being correct. Anyone who doubts this is labeled as a 'denier' and politely escorted out of the room. And yet, you say that the land temperatures are not increasing as predicted by these trustworthy models. Hmmm.

btilly 13y ago
But don't the climate models that predict global warming take into effect the ocean's heat absorption and the resulting ice melt and the resulting change in the earth's albedo and so on? They attempt to. But many of those feedbacks are complex, poorly understood, and hard to model. That is one of the reasons why predictions have large error bars on them. I know it is complicated but the 'conventional wisdom' has been that the best climate models take all these feedback mechanisms into consideration and predict a catastrophic increase in temperatures and that the science is 'settled' on this. We've been told over and over again that the models are trustworthy and beyond criticism. All the radical regulatory and economic policy recommendations are based on these models being correct. Anyone who doubts this is labeled as a 'denier' and politely escorted out of the room. There are stupid people on both sides, and certainly a lot of people state certainties that go way beyond what scientists would consider settled. And yet, you say that the land temperatures are not increasing as predicted by these trustworthy models. Hmmm. They are not increasing as fast as the median prediction. But they are well within the error bars that we've had all along. This is a disconnect between scientific consensus and popular belief that we've seen before in other fields, like evolution. Science, by its very nature, always has a lot of rough edges and unexpected bobbles. Scientists focus on these. In their discussions of all of the ways in which they have failed to perfectly understand, and how they can understand better, they say lots of things that can be (and are!) cherrypicked for propaganda among people who think that the scientists are dead wrong. But when you trace back the quotes to the source, and look at the overwhelming bulk of the research, you realize that the scientists actually had broad agreement all along (with occasional exceptional data points). The scientist who wrote the article this discussion is about would be an exceptional data point. Fred Hoyle's rejection of the big bang theory would be a similar one. So would the creationist beliefs of Kurt Wise and Timothy H. Heaton. (Both got PhDs in geology from Harvard and studied under Stephen J. Gould.) I list these exceptions not to dismiss them. But to say that you cannot understand the nature of scientific consensus without understanding that not all scientists will agree with it. And the nature of science done right is that people who disagree, but who manage to maintain the forms and standards of science, are permitted to maintain their arguments until the day that they die. Other scientists may disagree and shake their heads. You may get articles like http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html written in disbelief. But the contrary argument is allowed to be made. Is allowed to be heard. And if evidence is on its side, will eventually be allowed to overturn what people had thought settled. This is part of the scientific process. However scientific history shows that while we celebrate people on the scientific fringe who proved to be right, the smart money wouldn't generally bet that that fringe beliefs were right. And at this point, denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming is very much a fringe belief. (Though one that will see you well rewarded by some powerful economic interests.)
- gwright 13y ago
  Bottom line: reality is diverging from the models and in some cases diverging from the range covered by the error bars. The radical policy recommendations have been predicated not on some warming or mild warming but on catastrophic warming and been justified by pointing to 'scientific consensus'. The natural skepticism that a scientist should have has been severely lacking in the climate science community.
  - btilly 13y ago
    I fail to see any support for your "bottom line" in this article. Do you have a citation for me to look into?
    - gwright 13y ago
      The title itself says "extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'. That is, the error bars have shifted down. The second paragraph says there has been an 'unexplained standstill' since 1998. Further down Dr. Otto from Oxford is quoted as saying that the "hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone". Certainly sounds to me as if there is something going on that wasn't anticipated in earlier models, especially the 'hottest models' -- the ones that are most worrying.
      - btilly 13y ago
        Oh dear. Proposals that had been on the extreme side of the possible are now considered impossible. Everything that we thought has fallen through! It is time to stop believing everything that scientists say! Do you have any idea how many garbage theories are published every day? It is all part of the scientific process, as is the process by which we constantly weed out proposals. Wake me when the scientific consensus has moved to a median rise below 1.0 C per century. Until then scientists are not actually disagreeing with what a lot of them claimed in the IPCC report you were blasting. And even if that report was wrong, until the bottom of the range includes 0 C/century, the consensus is global warming.

by gwright 13y ago

But don't the climate models that predict global warming take into effect the ocean's heat absorption and the resulting ice melt and the resulting change in the earth's albedo and so on? I know it is complicated but the 'conventional wisdom' has been that the best climate models take all these feedback mechanisms into consideration and predict a catastrophic increase in temperatures and that the science is 'settled' on this. We've been told over and over again that the models are trustworthy and beyond criticism. All the radical regulatory and economic policy recommendations are based on these models being correct. Anyone who doubts this is labeled as a 'denier' and politely escorted out of the room. And yet, you say that the land temperatures are not increasing as predicted by these trustworthy models. Hmmm.

btilly 13y ago

But don't the climate models that predict global warming take into effect the ocean's heat absorption and the resulting ice melt and the resulting change in the earth's albedo and so on? They attempt to. But many of those feedbacks are complex, poorly understood, and hard to model. That is one of the reasons why predictions have large error bars on them. I know it is complicated but the 'conventional wisdom' has been that the best climate models take all these feedback mechanisms into consideration and predict a catastrophic increase in temperatures and that the science is 'settled' on this. We've been told over and over again that the models are trustworthy and beyond criticism. All the radical regulatory and economic policy recommendations are based on these models being correct. Anyone who doubts this is labeled as a 'denier' and politely escorted out of the room. There are stupid people on both sides, and certainly a lot of people state certainties that go way beyond what scientists would consider settled. And yet, you say that the land temperatures are not increasing as predicted by these trustworthy models. Hmmm. They are not increasing as fast as the median prediction. But they are well within the error bars that we've had all along. This is a disconnect between scientific consensus and popular belief that we've seen before in other fields, like evolution. Science, by its very nature, always has a lot of rough edges and unexpected bobbles. Scientists focus on these. In their discussions of all of the ways in which they have failed to perfectly understand, and how they can understand better, they say lots of things that can be (and are!) cherrypicked for propaganda among people who think that the scientists are dead wrong. But when you trace back the quotes to the source, and look at the overwhelming bulk of the research, you realize that the scientists actually had broad agreement all along (with occasional exceptional data points). The scientist who wrote the article this discussion is about would be an exceptional data point. Fred Hoyle's rejection of the big bang theory would be a similar one. So would the creationist beliefs of Kurt Wise and Timothy H. Heaton. (Both got PhDs in geology from Harvard and studied under Stephen J. Gould.) I list these exceptions not to dismiss them. But to say that you cannot understand the nature of scientific consensus without understanding that not all scientists will agree with it. And the nature of science done right is that people who disagree, but who manage to maintain the forms and standards of science, are permitted to maintain their arguments until the day that they die. Other scientists may disagree and shake their heads. You may get articles like http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html written in disbelief. But the contrary argument is allowed to be made. Is allowed to be heard. And if evidence is on its side, will eventually be allowed to overturn what people had thought settled. This is part of the scientific process. However scientific history shows that while we celebrate people on the scientific fringe who proved to be right, the smart money wouldn't generally bet that that fringe beliefs were right. And at this point, denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming is very much a fringe belief. (Though one that will see you well rewarded by some powerful economic interests.)

gwright 13y ago
Bottom line: reality is diverging from the models and in some cases diverging from the range covered by the error bars. The radical policy recommendations have been predicated not on some warming or mild warming but on catastrophic warming and been justified by pointing to 'scientific consensus'. The natural skepticism that a scientist should have has been severely lacking in the climate science community.
- btilly 13y ago
  I fail to see any support for your "bottom line" in this article. Do you have a citation for me to look into?
  - gwright 13y ago
    The title itself says "extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'. That is, the error bars have shifted down. The second paragraph says there has been an 'unexplained standstill' since 1998. Further down Dr. Otto from Oxford is quoted as saying that the "hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone". Certainly sounds to me as if there is something going on that wasn't anticipated in earlier models, especially the 'hottest models' -- the ones that are most worrying.
    - btilly 13y ago
      Oh dear. Proposals that had been on the extreme side of the possible are now considered impossible. Everything that we thought has fallen through! It is time to stop believing everything that scientists say! Do you have any idea how many garbage theories are published every day? It is all part of the scientific process, as is the process by which we constantly weed out proposals. Wake me when the scientific consensus has moved to a median rise below 1.0 C per century. Until then scientists are not actually disagreeing with what a lot of them claimed in the IPCC report you were blasting. And even if that report was wrong, until the bottom of the range includes 0 C/century, the consensus is global warming.