2 ms·

We're not that far apart then. But I don't see where "turn over large sections of the world's economy to climatologists to make the earth their private lab" is

by robg 17y ago

We're not that far apart then. But I don't see where "turn over large sections of the world's economy to climatologists to make the earth their private lab" is true. That sounds like a scare tactic itself. And Physics did pretty decent work in it's first 100 years. The next 100 were even more revolutionary. I see no reason why Climate Science, with 30 - 50 years under its belt, can't mine important insights, and suggest and test changes, within our lifetimes. As to the connection between science and politics, I really think it's inevitable. Politicians fund science in every democracy. We need to lobby them on the importance of the work. Unfortunately that sometimes means grandstanding and fear mongering. But the alternative is the science doesn't get funding. I sort of have skins in the game so here my own objectivity gets dicey. I agree with you on your philosophy of science. But I don't see huge changes in public policy. Kyoto hasn't done much. What's the real risk of cap and trade? Some marginal costs go up? Even as it may appear scientists are running roughshod over and through debates, they're constrained by political and economic pressures, as they should be. The bigger the change in America, at least, the harder it is to pass through Congress, even with one party holding a supramajority. More problematic for climate scientists is the need to get all nations on-board, including developing nations. I don't see that happening. Debates among nations will prevent what you're most worried about up until it's clearly an asteroid. Just coming back to your main point, on conjecture versus hypothesis-driven research, it seems pretty clear to me what the prevailing hypothesis is: Humans are responsible for some measurable, and significant, changes in the climate. I'm still unclear on the alternative hypothesis and, more importantly, how it can be tested. Can you enlighten me?

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Apologies for the hyperbole, but I believe your position is that we should adjust the inputs -- control gas emissions -- and then see what happens. If I've misunderstood you please explain. Assigning that kind of political power isn't something one does lightly. The science and politics thing is indeed dicey. I would suggest that a set of ethical guidelines be established to keep both parties honest, much like we have with the doctor-patient relationship in psychoanalysis. There's simply too much temptation for each side to use the other for their advantage. We don't want to end up with one party "scientifically" proving the other party is a bunch of morons (substitute much more PC adjectives here). We certainly don't want politicians announcing that scientific or political debate is "over" for a particular topic. E-gads man, that's a travesty. Last time I had a AGW discussion on HN (several months back), somebody pointed out that we've actually been seeing a cooling trend, not a warming one. If the current year continues that trend, the original models will have been invalidated -- the actual observed data will fall outside of the 95% confidence range. I know this sounds like stalling for time, but since I'm not in a hurry anyway, I'd like to see the current year's data. I'm not a climatologist, and of course it's not incumbent on me to put forth any alternatives. I am, however, aware of several. (I've spent some time researching this issue). There's the 1500-year cycle theory, that since the last great ice age we've seen regular 1500-year cycles. There's the average-global-temperature-is-primarily-a-result-of-solar-radiation crowd. I think those guys, Russians if I recall, made a bet back in 2000 that the next decade would see cooling, not warming. Perhaps they'll get paid? I don't know. There are theories that cosmic radiation is responsible for cloud coverage and that cloud coverage is the primary ingredient in climate. My personal half-baked theory is that since we are talking about a mixed chemical and biological system, with hundreds of thousands of variables, the climate is probably a chaotic system with an attractor based around solar input. This means that small inputs could have large effects, but it also means that large inputs may have no effect at all. With a little more research I'm sure we could find a lot of other ideas out there. The smoking gun in current model application is the fact that all of them have runaway conditions at the end. This has been interpreted as portraying some pending doom, but any computer science nerd who has played around with chaotic and CA systems can observe that the default behavior is runaway systems. So on general principle I'm skeptical that we're not seeing much more than experimentation noise.
- robg 17y ago
  Thanks. To me, controlling gas emissions just doesn't seem like a big deal and it certainly seems to be a weak form of political power, especially if something like cap and trade is implemented. Moreover, suppose all it means is turning every coal power plant in the world into a nuclear power plant in the next fifty years. That level of intervention, if other CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption were kept relatively constant, seems like a simple test of the human impact hypothesis. Coal operators may not be happy they're being put out of business, but can they prove their product is safe? I'm no climatologist either. But I sometimes know testable hypotheses when I see them. I don't see how a 1500 year model is testable. Even if you're okay with waiting another 1450 years that's still not science. No intervention is being measurable so you should be just as dissatisfied with the science impact claimed there. I also don't see how a solar radiation model is testable. How can we block or change solar radiation? Giant mirrors in space? Or how can we change cloud coverage? I have no problem with other ideas. But ideas without some validation test(s) are really no different than faith-based opinions. I thought that's the big problem for you? Right now, it seems we have a clear hypothesis to explain climate change (note that I think the debate is shifting away from more limited "warming"): Human activities, namely industrialization, have negatively impacted the globe's climate patterns. We also have a clear test: Change human activities, specifically carbon output, and you change the climate. I don't see a better alternative at this time - one that clearly states the problem and proposes a solution. That doesn't mean there isn't an alternative framing and solution. I just haven't seen it. If one denies climate change, then, they aren't offering an alternative to explain and prevent it. If one denies the role of humans, same problem. Neither of these framings are scientific. They present hypotheses without any way of rejecting them. That's faith. Here's another framing that's much simpler: Deforestation has led to climate change. That's a subordinate hypothesis to the one above, but it offers a clear cause to test and a way to do so. Plant more trees because of the role of carbon in photosynthesis. Of course, the problem, if you really want to nail causality, is getting the globe's inhabitants to only plant trees for fifty years and change nothing else. Instead, that will be one intervention among many. But importantly, they'll all tend to share the goal of reducing carbon output. And that seems to be the direction we're headed. Over the next twenty years I suspect we will become much better at controlling worldwide carbon output, at least enough to see any effects. What's beautiful to me about science is if that hypothesis is rejected, and the climate continues to be chaotic, scientists (and their funding agencies) will formulate new hypotheses and tests. The process may seem slow and insulated, but it is self-correcting. If the problem seems to go away - the Arctic starts freezing again - the funding for climate research will dry up. As for politics and science, I'm afraid it's as good as it gets. And it's not bad. When priorities align we put men on the moon, cure diseases, and explain, to some extent, human nature and suffering. For the most part, politicians leave scientists alone because the most difficult quandaries of our time are ethical in nature. Scientists become advisers but not decision makers.

by robg 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Apologies for the hyperbole, but I believe your position is that we should adjust the inputs -- control gas emissions -- and then see what happens. If I've misunderstood you please explain. Assigning that kind of political power isn't something one does lightly. The science and politics thing is indeed dicey. I would suggest that a set of ethical guidelines be established to keep both parties honest, much like we have with the doctor-patient relationship in psychoanalysis. There's simply too much temptation for each side to use the other for their advantage. We don't want to end up with one party "scientifically" proving the other party is a bunch of morons (substitute much more PC adjectives here). We certainly don't want politicians announcing that scientific or political debate is "over" for a particular topic. E-gads man, that's a travesty. Last time I had a AGW discussion on HN (several months back), somebody pointed out that we've actually been seeing a cooling trend, not a warming one. If the current year continues that trend, the original models will have been invalidated -- the actual observed data will fall outside of the 95% confidence range. I know this sounds like stalling for time, but since I'm not in a hurry anyway, I'd like to see the current year's data. I'm not a climatologist, and of course it's not incumbent on me to put forth any alternatives. I am, however, aware of several. (I've spent some time researching this issue). There's the 1500-year cycle theory, that since the last great ice age we've seen regular 1500-year cycles. There's the average-global-temperature-is-primarily-a-result-of-solar-radiation crowd. I think those guys, Russians if I recall, made a bet back in 2000 that the next decade would see cooling, not warming. Perhaps they'll get paid? I don't know. There are theories that cosmic radiation is responsible for cloud coverage and that cloud coverage is the primary ingredient in climate. My personal half-baked theory is that since we are talking about a mixed chemical and biological system, with hundreds of thousands of variables, the climate is probably a chaotic system with an attractor based around solar input. This means that small inputs could have large effects, but it also means that large inputs may have no effect at all. With a little more research I'm sure we could find a lot of other ideas out there. The smoking gun in current model application is the fact that all of them have runaway conditions at the end. This has been interpreted as portraying some pending doom, but any computer science nerd who has played around with chaotic and CA systems can observe that the default behavior is runaway systems. So on general principle I'm skeptical that we're not seeing much more than experimentation noise.

robg 17y ago
Thanks. To me, controlling gas emissions just doesn't seem like a big deal and it certainly seems to be a weak form of political power, especially if something like cap and trade is implemented. Moreover, suppose all it means is turning every coal power plant in the world into a nuclear power plant in the next fifty years. That level of intervention, if other CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption were kept relatively constant, seems like a simple test of the human impact hypothesis. Coal operators may not be happy they're being put out of business, but can they prove their product is safe? I'm no climatologist either. But I sometimes know testable hypotheses when I see them. I don't see how a 1500 year model is testable. Even if you're okay with waiting another 1450 years that's still not science. No intervention is being measurable so you should be just as dissatisfied with the science impact claimed there. I also don't see how a solar radiation model is testable. How can we block or change solar radiation? Giant mirrors in space? Or how can we change cloud coverage? I have no problem with other ideas. But ideas without some validation test(s) are really no different than faith-based opinions. I thought that's the big problem for you? Right now, it seems we have a clear hypothesis to explain climate change (note that I think the debate is shifting away from more limited "warming"): Human activities, namely industrialization, have negatively impacted the globe's climate patterns. We also have a clear test: Change human activities, specifically carbon output, and you change the climate. I don't see a better alternative at this time - one that clearly states the problem and proposes a solution. That doesn't mean there isn't an alternative framing and solution. I just haven't seen it. If one denies climate change, then, they aren't offering an alternative to explain and prevent it. If one denies the role of humans, same problem. Neither of these framings are scientific. They present hypotheses without any way of rejecting them. That's faith. Here's another framing that's much simpler: Deforestation has led to climate change. That's a subordinate hypothesis to the one above, but it offers a clear cause to test and a way to do so. Plant more trees because of the role of carbon in photosynthesis. Of course, the problem, if you really want to nail causality, is getting the globe's inhabitants to only plant trees for fifty years and change nothing else. Instead, that will be one intervention among many. But importantly, they'll all tend to share the goal of reducing carbon output. And that seems to be the direction we're headed. Over the next twenty years I suspect we will become much better at controlling worldwide carbon output, at least enough to see any effects. What's beautiful to me about science is if that hypothesis is rejected, and the climate continues to be chaotic, scientists (and their funding agencies) will formulate new hypotheses and tests. The process may seem slow and insulated, but it is self-correcting. If the problem seems to go away - the Arctic starts freezing again - the funding for climate research will dry up. As for politics and science, I'm afraid it's as good as it gets. And it's not bad. When priorities align we put men on the moon, cure diseases, and explain, to some extent, human nature and suffering. For the most part, politicians leave scientists alone because the most difficult quandaries of our time are ethical in nature. Scientists become advisers but not decision makers.