Today's XKCD nicely sums up my feelings about climate change sceptics. (It's a lot easier to invent a crackpot reason for it not to be true, then it is to go and study the actual science)
I observed years ago why this is common in engineers but yes, philosophers are prone to it too, albeit for slightly different reasons brought out well in that cartoon.
Engineers tend to learn the simple explanations for physical phenomena, and so are prone to pick holes in them and/or apply 'common sense experience' to situations well beyond any experience they actually have. (Show me someone who has spent significant time at a large fraction of the speed of light or in the gravity field of a neutron star and I'll concede that they're entitled to take a common sense approach to relativity.) This cartoon suggests that for philosophers it is more the expectation that they are better equipped to do thought experiments than anyone else.
So perhaps if the HadCRUT3 raw data could be shared, and the rationale for the transformation of that data could be explained, us sceptics would understand and believe.
Data has to be corrected for all kinds of reasons. eg. Satellite orbits drift over time and data from satellites has to be altered to correct for that.
Cities produce a lot of heat (known as the urban heat island effect). If you want to work out temperature rises without including the urban heating (which makes temperature rises look larger than they really are), then you have to subtract for that (and compare with data from outside cities to make sure you are doing it correctly)
You might find this site useful for a basic summary of a lot of the main points. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
The site you mention gives no links to data. eg. It lists 'lowest temperature records' but with no reference to what kind of record. eg. How many years does the data cover. Is that 'lowest temperature in 10 years, or in 100'. Is it 'lowest ever 12th December' or 'lowest ever temperature in December'.
If you cherry pick data on individual days, you can prove pretty much anything. You have to use averages over several years to see any meaningful patterns. You could probably find endless records for 'hottest ever 5th July' (or any random date that just happened to be a record in one of the thousands of places they've looked at on lots of different days). But I wouldn't quote individual days at you - only long term averages carry any meaning statistically.
Their article on the 'Danish' plan at Copenhagen references a move by some of the developed countries to try and get the developing world to keep their carbon emissions lower than the developed world. No surprises there. The developed countries are going to find it tough to lower their emissions as far as they need to. If they can persuade other people to keep at a lower level, then they can try to pollute more. They aren't disagreeing with the science, just being greedy and trying to protect their economies at the expense of other people's economic growth.
I suspect the withdrawal of the CRU tree-ring data is related to problems with tree-ring data being relatively unreliable after about 1960. After that date, the correlation between tree ring data and temperature (as measured by thermometers) becomes less reliable. We don't have a good explanation as to why this happens. It could be pollution affecting trees, or it could be something else.
Frankly, tree rings are much better for dating stuff (like old buildings) than for deducing temperature. You can use them, but you would never rely on them as your only source of climate data. Ice cores provide a more direct record of historical temperatures (though you have to treat all temperature records as local and get samples from as many different places as possible).
It is complicated. Watts on that website does not attempt to give a holistic sceptical view of the data. He can't because he isn't allowed to access it. So the discussions tend to focus on individual problems which tend to point up the way the data is being manipulated (I use that word non-pejoratively) to show trends. The Darwin station data is an interesting case in point.
If somebody has withdrawn tree-ring data because it is unreliable, surely they should say so. For the data to just disappear just adds fuel (pun intended) to the fire of the sceptics argument that Something Funny Is Going On.
Transparency is fundamental to science. There's something here that appears to be underhand and questionable. I have no political agenda at all, (I'm faily left wing if anything) but as a scientist I like to see data that those people skilled in the art can comment on, and that is not happening.
What watervole said about http://wattsupwiththat.com/.
Watts is a better denialist than the likes of Monckton or Bellamy, because he knows meteorology and they don't, but his technique is the same: nitpick holes in selected data and make hand-waving claims that "this proves things!" without saying exactly what it proves. Or (crucially) attem,pting to assemble his individual observations and assertions into a coherent alternative explanation for the observed phenomena. In other words, a theory to explain the current global warming.
And if he doesn't have that, he doesn't have anything.
Clinical observation of the climate shows there's absolutely a climate change ongoing (and rapidly). They can study the data until the cows come home (as Nanny used to say) and it won't change the reality.
I ignore nitpicking skeptics. They exist in all fields but they never address the phenomena they are discussing. Evolution is a major case in point. They don't want to see it so they don't see it. Denial is a powerful motivator.
For the data to just disappear just adds fuel (pun intended) to the fire of the sceptics argument that Something Funny Is Going On.
The CRU data is corroborated by at least two other sources, NASA's Goddard Institute and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Logically, therefore, any argument that the CRU data has been covertly manipulated needs to argue the same for the other two sources as well (and that, equally logically, there is a conspiracy, involving thousands of scientists, to suppress the truth).
The alternative would be to accept that the CRU's data correction is not ClimateGate, and that this is therefore an argument about how and to what extent the data needs to be or has been corrected, and not an argument about the theory behind anthropogenic climate change.
There are of course quite a few theories about why the world is warming. We are reminded by the sceptics that the Vikings found Greenland to be... green... There are oscillations of temperature that work naturally to produce ice ages, stadials and interstadials. Sceptics do not say that warming is not happening, they just question whether much of it is due to anthropogenic CO2 when there are several big climatic factors to consider; the PDO, the AMO, sunspots... etc.
Our response to that warming might be different if we think it is not man made. The changes we are proposing to make restricting carbon emissions will seriously affect the economic development of the third world. I would not like to responsible for doing that unnecessarily.
If you familiarise yourself with sme of the best sceptical views you will no doubt see their points better than I can explain them as a mere biochemist.
"Climate Debate Daily" is also a good place to check.
But my main point is that the data is closely and secretly held. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act were denied and "warmist" commentators have said that it should be withheld - as it would only be used by sceptics to refute the global warming arguments. And my point is, that is exactly how science is supposed to work. Data should be open, models should be challengeable, otherwise the suspicion is that somebody has something to hide.
An interviewee on last Monday's "Today" programme on Radio 4 said that climate science is an inverted pyramid. There are relatively few people analysing and modelling that data and they are all in close touch with each other and reinforcing each others' views. There are relatively more people commentating on the models, and hordes of people writing about those comments. Certainly the CRU E-mail debacle raises some questions about swallowing the company kool-aid. Or warm-aid, as I've said elsewhere. Have you read HARRY_READ_ME?
Yes there is warming. But the sceptics don't think it is primarily due to anthropogenic CO2. And the fossil record is more easy to access than the climate change model data.
Oh, please. The fossil record is less plentiful, less specific and thus easier to manipulate not easier to access. There's more BS spun around the evolutionary record than climate change and yet the fossil record is clear and obvious to anyone paying attention. The climate change is happening now and there's equal plentiful evidence that C02 may be deeply involved. If it may be involved, don't you think we should do something about it? If there's a 50/50 chance of some maniac being a serial killer, do we stand aside and ignore him? We may not have enough evidence to arrest him but we damned sure at least take measures to control him.
There are of course quite a few theories about why the world is warming.
No, there are not. There is one theory -- that current global warming is attributable to anthropogenic effects -- and there is a host of "zombie" arguments which the sceptics put up again and again irrespective of the number of times they've had the data cut from under them. (Hence the term "zombie".) See here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php) for further details.
The changes we are proposing to make restricting carbon emissions will seriously affect the economic development of the third world.
The unvarnished truth is that the kind of economic overdevelopment we in the rich North have enjoyed for the past two centuries is simply not available to the LDCs of the South. The resources which would be required to bring everyone up to the same standard of living as a North American or a Western European would require two-and-a-half planet Earths. That is, of course, impossible to deliver. (This comment leaves aside entirely the impact that global warming will have on the LDCs as their crops fails and their coastlines disappear. By definition, the infrastructure of LDCs is less resilient than that of the rich North, and the people are therefore less able to cope with catastrophic-style departures from the norm.)
There are relatively few people analysing and modelling that data and they are all in close touch with each other and reinforcing each others' views.
Come on, now. Irrespective of what is said about the CRU data -- whether it's been manipulated, whether it should be withheld, what explanations should be attached to it -- this is the conspiracy theory view of global warming: that the IPCC is a secretive cabal set up to preserve scientists' jobs and scare "the sheeple" for some shadowy agenda which the denialists complain about but have still to actually identify.
Have you read HARRY_READ_ME?
I have read the extracts here (http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/harry_read_me_file_is_a_must_read/), but all they show is that the database wasn't properly organised (not a surprise -- scientists aren't programmers) and that the person assigned to sort it out realised early on that it would take more time and effort than everyone around him anticipated (and failed to give him the back-up he obviously needed). To see his string of comments as a "this proves things!" moment is a very silly step.
I think calling them skeptics is too complementary for 95% of them. Most of the time all one gets are wacky conspiracy theories and arguments that were proved wrong years ago. While any scientific theory is only provisional the low quality of most of the counterarguments is starting to become an additional reason to believe it.
A skeptic is merely someone who is critical of accepted beliefs . There are brilliant, careful skeptics and stupid ones who employ intellectual conceits based on personal belief systems (and thus are not skeptical at all). If we're really looking for the truth, I would think we would want to avoid praising the latter simply because they might agree with us.
I actually once had someone agree with me that "something was odd in the data" and that "possibly my theory was correct" but he added that my theory was "dangerous" and should be discouraged. It wasn't dangerous to anything but his belief system. Facts are facts, as the wise man in my icon said, and no matter our beliefs, they will remain what they are -- what they truly are.
As watervole is aware, I just skip the whole "It isn't", "It is so!", "Tisn't either" argument and go for the following:
Global Warming is happening and either:
1) It's affected by what mankind does or
2) It's not affected by mankind does.
Now, whichever of these are true, the fact is that, as a species we are using more and more energy and, as other nations develop, they will also use more energy until we reach a point where that usage is unsustainable by current generation methods.
So, how about we *all* just find ways to reduce energy usage or, at least, use currently available energy in a more efficient manner.
That way, if statement 1 is correct, we'll be doing something about it and if it's not correct, then at least we'll be extending the time-frame in which we can use our current generation methods until we can successfully develop Fusion or some other entirely non-polluting energy source.
GISS and NOAA and CRU are closely linked as you will see from the e-mail threads in "Climate Gate". There is not necessarily a conspiracy, but an instance of groupthink among a relatively small group of scientists who are after all led and influenced by a very small group of senior staff.
You are right, this is an argument about how and to what extent the data needs to be corrected. It's just that the corrections that are being applied can actually force the model into the opposite direction to the raw data. See the piece on WUWT that refers to the Darwin, Australia, data corrections and you will see what I mean.
So let us see the data. Let some of the academically qualified sceptics comment on it. There are qualified sceptics out there in Massachusetts and Hntsville Alabama, for instance.
I'm happy for us to limit our dependence on fossil fuels, they pollute with sulphur and nitorgen, they are under the control of flaky governments, and they will one day run out. But mass panic because of models that rely on positive feedback and over-massaged data is not useful.
Science has the propensity to morph into politics and that's what's happened here.
This is a tomato, tomato thing, I'm afraid. I see one thing in the data and you see another. The best we can hope for is to err on the side of caution and do what we can to limit the negative impact of humans on the planet.
BTW, I'm a longtime critic of the "obesity is a mass killer" school of medical science which *is* finessed data to bring about a point of view commensurate with what certain people want to believe. I'm sympathetic with rigorous appraisal of faulty data but I just don't see much fault in the climate data.
I won't disagree with that. The current lot of propaganda masquerading as fact in the Act on CO2 "public information films" really gets on my nerves with its "OMG Won't Someone Think of the Children!!!" BS :-(
Agree with you about obesity. It's a case of correlation does not always imply causation.
In the case of obesity it appears that lack of exercise is actually the killer. An obese person who is physically active appears to have health more on a par with the population at large.
It just happens that lack of exercise causes obesity, and obese people find it harder to take exercise - thus the correlation.
Quite a lot of people do say exactly that, and they say it loudly.
Sceptics who do accept that warming is actually happening, but who on rational grounds are uncertain about its cause, maybe need to work harder to dissociate themselves from those who deny the whole phenomenon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Engineers tend to learn the simple explanations for physical phenomena, and so are prone to pick holes in them and/or apply 'common sense experience' to situations well beyond any experience they actually have. (Show me someone who has spent significant time at a large fraction of the speed of light or in the gravity field of a neutron star and I'll concede that they're entitled to take a common sense approach to relativity.) This cartoon suggests that for philosophers it is more the expectation that they are better equipped to do thought experiments than anyone else.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Cities produce a lot of heat (known as the urban heat island effect). If you want to work out temperature rises without including the urban heating (which makes temperature rises look larger than they really are), then you have to subtract for that (and compare with data from outside cities to make sure you are doing it correctly)
You might find this site useful for a basic summary of a lot of the main points. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
no subject
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
no subject
If you cherry pick data on individual days, you can prove pretty much anything. You have to use averages over several years to see any meaningful patterns. You could probably find endless records for 'hottest ever 5th July' (or any random date that just happened to be a record in one of the thousands of places they've looked at on lots of different days). But I wouldn't quote individual days at you - only long term averages carry any meaning statistically.
Their article on the 'Danish' plan at Copenhagen references a move by some of the developed countries to try and get the developing world to keep their carbon emissions lower than the developed world. No surprises there. The developed countries are going to find it tough to lower their emissions as far as they need to. If they can persuade other people to keep at a lower level, then they can try to pollute more. They aren't disagreeing with the science, just being greedy and trying to protect their economies at the expense of other people's economic growth.
I suspect the withdrawal of the CRU tree-ring data is related to problems with tree-ring data being relatively unreliable after about 1960. After that date, the correlation between tree ring data and temperature (as measured by thermometers) becomes less reliable. We don't have a good explanation as to why this happens. It could be pollution affecting trees, or it could be something else.
Frankly, tree rings are much better for dating stuff (like old buildings) than for deducing temperature. You can use them, but you would never rely on them as your only source of climate data. Ice cores provide a more direct record of historical temperatures (though you have to treat all temperature records as local and get samples from as many different places as possible).
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-14 05:18 pm (UTC)(link)If somebody has withdrawn tree-ring data because it is unreliable, surely they should say so. For the data to just disappear just adds fuel (pun intended) to the fire of the sceptics argument that Something Funny Is Going On.
Transparency is fundamental to science. There's something here that appears to be underhand and questionable. I have no political agenda at all, (I'm faily left wing if anything) but as a scientist I like to see data that those people skilled in the art can comment on, and that is not happening.
no subject
Watts is a better denialist than the likes of Monckton or Bellamy, because he knows meteorology and they don't, but his technique is the same: nitpick holes in selected data and make hand-waving claims that "this proves things!" without saying exactly what it proves. Or (crucially) attem,pting to assemble his individual observations and assertions into a coherent alternative explanation for the observed phenomena. In other words, a theory to explain the current global warming.
And if he doesn't have that, he doesn't have anything.
no subject
I ignore nitpicking skeptics. They exist in all fields but they never address the phenomena they are discussing. Evolution is a major case in point. They don't want to see it so they don't see it. Denial is a powerful motivator.
no subject
The CRU data is corroborated by at least two other sources, NASA's Goddard Institute and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Logically, therefore, any argument that the CRU data has been covertly manipulated needs to argue the same for the other two sources as well (and that, equally logically, there is a conspiracy, involving thousands of scientists, to suppress the truth).
The alternative would be to accept that the CRU's data correction is not ClimateGate, and that this is therefore an argument about how and to what extent the data needs to be or has been corrected, and not an argument about the theory behind anthropogenic climate change.
no subject
Our response to that warming might be different if we think it is not man made. The changes we are proposing to make restricting carbon emissions will seriously affect the economic development of the third world. I would not like to responsible for doing that unnecessarily.
If you familiarise yourself with sme of the best sceptical views you will no doubt see their points better than I can explain them as a mere biochemist.
"Climate Debate Daily" is also a good place to check.
But my main point is that the data is closely and secretly held. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act were denied and "warmist" commentators have said that it should be withheld - as it would only be used by sceptics to refute the global warming arguments. And my point is, that is exactly how science is supposed to work. Data should be open, models should be challengeable, otherwise the suspicion is that somebody has something to hide.
An interviewee on last Monday's "Today" programme on Radio 4 said that climate science is an inverted pyramid. There are relatively few people analysing and modelling that data and they are all in close touch with each other and reinforcing each others' views. There are relatively more people commentating on the models, and hordes of people writing about those comments. Certainly the CRU E-mail debacle raises some questions about swallowing the company kool-aid. Or warm-aid, as I've said elsewhere. Have you read HARRY_READ_ME?
no subject
no subject
no subject
No, there are not. There is one theory -- that current global warming is attributable to anthropogenic effects -- and there is a host of "zombie" arguments which the sceptics put up again and again irrespective of the number of times they've had the data cut from under them. (Hence the term "zombie".) See here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php) for further details.
The changes we are proposing to make restricting carbon emissions will seriously affect the economic development of the third world.
The unvarnished truth is that the kind of economic overdevelopment we in the rich North have enjoyed for the past two centuries is simply not available to the LDCs of the South. The resources which would be required to bring everyone up to the same standard of living as a North American or a Western European would require two-and-a-half planet Earths. That is, of course, impossible to deliver. (This comment leaves aside entirely the impact that global warming will have on the LDCs as their crops fails and their coastlines disappear. By definition, the infrastructure of LDCs is less resilient than that of the rich North, and the people are therefore less able to cope with catastrophic-style departures from the norm.)
There are relatively few people analysing and modelling that data and they are all in close touch with each other and reinforcing each others' views.
Come on, now. Irrespective of what is said about the CRU data -- whether it's been manipulated, whether it should be withheld, what explanations should be attached to it -- this is the conspiracy theory view of global warming: that the IPCC is a secretive cabal set up to preserve scientists' jobs and scare "the sheeple" for some shadowy agenda which the denialists complain about but have still to actually identify.
Have you read HARRY_READ_ME?
I have read the extracts here (http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/harry_read_me_file_is_a_must_read/), but all they show is that the database wasn't properly organised (not a surprise -- scientists aren't programmers) and that the person assigned to sort it out realised early on that it would take more time and effort than everyone around him anticipated (and failed to give him the back-up he obviously needed). To see his string of comments as a "this proves things!" moment is a very silly step.
no subject
While any scientific theory is only provisional the low quality of most of the counterarguments is starting to become an additional reason to believe it.
no subject
I actually once had someone agree with me that "something was odd in the data" and that "possibly my theory was correct" but he added that my theory was "dangerous" and should be discouraged. It wasn't dangerous to anything but his belief system. Facts are facts, as the wise man in my icon said, and no matter our beliefs, they will remain what they are -- what they truly are.
no subject
Global Warming is happening and either:
1) It's affected by what mankind does or
2) It's not affected by mankind does.
Now, whichever of these are true, the fact is that, as a species we are using more and more energy and, as other nations develop, they will also use more energy until we reach a point where that usage is unsustainable by current generation methods.
So, how about we *all* just find ways to reduce energy usage or, at least, use currently available energy in a more efficient manner.
That way, if statement 1 is correct, we'll be doing something about it and if it's not correct, then at least we'll be extending the time-frame in which we can use our current generation methods until we can successfully develop Fusion or some other entirely non-polluting energy source.
Sorted!
no subject
You are right, this is an argument about how and to what extent the data needs to be corrected. It's just that the corrections that are being applied can actually force the model into the opposite direction to the raw data. See the piece on WUWT that refers to the Darwin, Australia, data corrections and you will see what I mean.
The data is not in the public domain. Why not?
no subject
I'm happy for us to limit our dependence on fossil fuels, they pollute with sulphur and nitorgen, they are under the control of flaky governments, and they will one day run out. But mass panic because of models that rely on positive feedback and over-massaged data is not useful.
Science has the propensity to morph into politics and that's what's happened here.
no subject
no subject
no subject
BTW, I'm a longtime critic of the "obesity is a mass killer" school of medical science which *is* finessed data to bring about a point of view commensurate with what certain people want to believe. I'm sympathetic with rigorous appraisal of faulty data but I just don't see much fault in the climate data.
no subject
no subject
In the case of obesity it appears that lack of exercise is actually the killer. An obese person who is physically active appears to have health more on a par with the population at large.
It just happens that lack of exercise causes obesity, and obese people find it harder to take exercise - thus the correlation.
no subject
Quite a lot of people do say exactly that, and they say it loudly.
Sceptics who do accept that warming is actually happening, but who on rational grounds are uncertain about its cause, maybe need to work harder to dissociate themselves from those who deny the whole phenomenon.