U.S. Dept. of Ag report: Climate change is damaging America . . . now

[wevets]

@brazil84

That’s incorrect. For example, I can predict with a good degree of confidence that if you heat gold up to 1064 degrees celcius, it will melt. i.e. it’s reasonable to say “The melting point of gold is 1064 degrees celsius.”

You’ve committed at least two errors here: First, what I said was “There are no “facts” in the future.” (see post #179) Your statement is obviously a fact about the present and past, not the future.

Second, if it were a fact, you wouldn’t have to say “I can predict with a good degree of confidence.”

Let’s imagine you had tried to say “on August 15th, 2008, the melting point of gold will be 1064°C” it’s still a prediction and not a fact - for help, let’s look at the definition of fact:

@http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

fact
1: a thing done: as a: obsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic : action
2 archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact : in truth

You’re mixing up definitions 4 and 5. From context, you can probably tell that I’m using definition 4 (since I don’t care how anyone presents it, I’m only concerned with whether it is actual.) The future is not yet actual, and therefore any fact about it would have to wait until the future became the present, at which time the fact will no longer be about the future.

@brazil84

My objection was simply that you were presenting your view as if you were discussing something settled like the melting point of gold.

I think you are having difficulty understanding my posts. Let me highlight a section to help you:

@wevets

Well, think about it – 450 ppm translates to a likely increase of 1.5 to 3.5°C with the likeliest outcome of about 2.5°C global average temperature increase (see Harris et al. 2006. Frequency distributions of transient regional climate change from perturbed physics ensembles of general circulation model simulations. Climate Dynamics v. 27, n. 4, 357-375.)

I’m not sure if the difficulty you are having relates to the nature of probability, the use of the language, or the nature of evidence without certainty. Let me know and I’ll try to help.

[wevets]

@brazil84

wevets, it’s unfortunate that you have decided not to define “AGW.” I believe that a lot of confusion results from the failure to clearly define this sort of term. In any event, if you won’t explain what you mean by “AGW,” then I cannot really answer your earlier question.

I haven’t noticed any confusion over the definition of AGW in this thread, but here it is anyway…

I would define AGW as Anthropogenic in the sense that the strongest driving forces are driven by human activities, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. And it’s Global Warming in the sense that it is climate change that will result in an increase of the planet’s average surface temperature. So is AGW an accurate description of what’s happening? I believe it is highly likely that it is, and IIRC earlier in the thread you said something similar.

@brazil84

Essentially, the paper you cite shows that you can take a simulation which assumes amplification and fit it to a 4 year temperature record.

You’re ignoring the reason that I cited it:

@brazil84

So the critical question is whether or not there is a lot of positive feedback. There’s no real evidence to suggest that there is a lot of positive feedback

@Santer et al. 2007

In the SSM/I [Special Sensor Microwave Imager] data, <W0> [<W0> is the spatial mean of total column water vapor over oceans] increases over the period 1988-2006 by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade, with a 95% confidence interval of ±0.21 kg/m2 per decade (20). This trend is significantly different from zero.

The addition of extra water vapor to the atmosphere as the Earth’s surface and troposphere warms is evidence of positive water vapor feedback.
The other two papers I cited also point this out:

@Soden et al. 2002

Satellite observations confirm the decrease in solar heating due to Mount Pinatubo aerosols (20-22), which led to a global cooling of the lower troposphere (25, 24). Associated with this cooling was a reduction in the global water vapor concentrations, which closely tracked the decrease in temperature (25). Thus, Mount Pinatubo provides a unique opportunity to not only study the sensitivity of the climate system but, more importantly, to also assess the response of water vapor and quantify its role in determining that sensitivity.

@Soden et al. 2005

Both the HIRS [High Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder] observations and GCM simulations indicate an increase in T2 - T12 over this period [1982-2004], reflecting the moistening of the upper troposphere (Fig. 2, lower panel).

The model results are just a bennie.

@brazil84

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that climate simulations are advanced enough to predict temperatures over a 5-year time period reasonably accurately?
…
Let me repeat my earlier question: Do you believe that climate simulations are advanced enough to predict temperatures over a 5-year time period reasonably accurately?

Repeat? You didn’t think I would respond in the middle of your post, did you?

The current technique, from what I’ve read, is to run an ensemble of models rather than just a single model for a more accurate prediction of running mean of temperatures averaged over, say, five years. And I would say it works well. If you look at the Soden et al. 2002 paper I cited above you’ll see:

@Soden et al.

Over the period of June 1991 to December 1995, the standard model predicts an average global cooling of 0.31 K, which compares favorably with the observed cooling of 0.30 K [0.33 ±0.03 K, with ENSO signal removed (43)].

Since it’s likely that it will come up soon - random or semi-random events such as volcanic eruptions and ENSO can throw models off, as will going further into the future, but I have a pretty good degree of confidence in ensembles of models predicting running means of global temperatures over five years up to about 40 or so years into the future. After that, equilibrium calculations might be better than models at predicting conditions, I’d have to learn more to find out.

@brazil84

I’ve already explained why I think the sort of amplified warming necessary to produce signifiant negative effects is unlikely.

You haven’t provided any evidence to support your suggestion, and I’ve provided evidence to support the existence of positive water vapor feedback. Why should I believe your personal assessment of what is likely or unlikely when you haven’t presented evidence?

@brazil84

In any event, it’s worth emphasizing that you have the burden of proof. (If you subscribe to the hypothesis I think you do.)

“Proof” is a concept for mathematicians and philosophers – if it’s proof you’re looking for, you’ll never find it in science – which would explain a great deal about this thread :).

@brazil84

The only evidence I have seen for such a hypothesis is that it’s possible to construct a simulation consistent with the hypothesis and consistent with past temperatures. Sorry, but that’s not very persuasive.

What about the evidence (satellite measurements) of increased water vapor?

[brazil84]

@wevets

You’ve committed at least two errors here: First, what I said was “There are no “facts” in the future.” (see post #179) Your statement is obviously a fact about the present and past, not the future.

Second, if it were a fact, you wouldn’t have to say “I can predict with a good degree of confidence.”

Let’s imagine you had tried to say “on August 15th, 2008, the melting point of gold will be 1064°C” it’s still a prediction and not a fact - for help, let’s look at the definition of fact:

You can call it whatever you like, but most reasonable people would agree it’s a scientific fact that the melting point of gold is 1064C. (Do you agree?)

And what that means is that if you heat gold up to 1064C (in the future) you can be confident that the gold will melt.

By the way, there’s a different between being reasonably confident that something will happen and absolutely certain. See, in science, one can’t be absolutely confident of anything.

Apparently to you, “fact” means that something is absolutely certain. But obviously I was not using the phrase “scientific fact” to mean that. In other words, you seized upon my use of the word “fact,” interpreted it in a way that was obviously not intended, and then argued against that interpretation.

Simply put, you are attacking a straw man.

I’m not sure if the difficulty you are having relates to the nature of probability, the use of the language, or the nature of evidence without certainty. Let me know and I’ll try to help.

:shrug: The bottom line is that you should have inserted the qualifier “according to some climatologists” into your statement.

[brazil84]

@wevets

I would define AGW as Anthropogenic in the sense that the strongest driving forces are driven by human activities, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. And it’s Global Warming in the sense that it is climate change that will result in an increase of the planet’s average surface temperature.

Let’s see if I have this straight: According to you, the AGW hypothesis holds that (1) human activities, including but not necessarily limited to CO2 emissions, are the primary reason for recent increases in global surface temperatures; and (2) human activities, including but not necessarily limited to CO2 emissions, will cause temperature increases in the future.

Is that right?

You’re ignoring the reason that I cited it:

Why exactly did you cite it?

Repeat? You didn’t think I would respond in the middle of your post, did you?

I thought that you would probably evade the question.

The current technique, from what I’ve read, is to run an ensemble of models rather than just a single model for a more accurate prediction of running mean of temperatures averaged over, say, five years. And I would say it works well. If you look at the Soden et al. 2002 paper I cited above you’ll see:

In that case, the whole question of “AGW” can be resolved pretty easily, at least as far as I’m concerned. Just give me a graph showing the ups (and downs?) of temperatures over the next 5 years. If the fit turns out to be as beautiful as the fit in the first paper you cited, I will concede I am wrong in my skepticism.

You haven’t provided any evidence to support your suggestion, and I’ve provided evidence to support the existence of positive water vapor feedback. Why should I believe your personal assessment of what is likely or unlikely when you haven’t presented evidence?

I did present one piece of evidence, and I may present more if I can find the time. In any event, as I said, you have the burden of proof not me.

“Proof” is a concept for mathematicians and philosophers – if it’s proof you’re looking for, you’ll never find it in science – which would explain a great deal about this thread :).

:shrug: Let me rephrase things: You have the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to instill confidence that your hypothesis is correct. I refer to this as the “burden of proof,” but you can call it whatever you want. My point stands.

And let me ask you this: Do you think it’s been scientifically proven that regular smoking increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer?

What about the evidence (satellite measurements) of increased water vapor?

Perhaps. I would need to think about it.

[brazil84]

@brazil84

And let me ask you this: Do you think it’s been scientifically proven that regular smoking increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer?

By the way, my only point in asking this question is to show that it’s silly to claim that the concept of “proof” has no place in science. I am not saying that I will accept a scientific hypothesis only if it has been demonstrated with the level of certainty that exists for smoking/lung cancer.

Basically the same point applies re the melting point of gold and scientific fact.

[wevets]

I’m going to divvy this post up into two parts:

Part I - relates to climate change.

@brazil84

In that case, the whole question of “AGW” can be resolved pretty easily, at least as far as I’m concerned.

But you already believe in AGW.

@brazil84

I’m a CAGW skeptic, and I agree that human activity is causing change to the global climate. The critical question is how much, and whether human activities will cause significant harm.

From post #63. It sounds like the only part you disagree with is the “Catastrophic” which is a vague word anyway - a catastrophe for you is not the same as a catastrophe for me.

@brazil84

Just give me a graph showing the ups (and downs?) of temperatures over the next 5 years. If the fit turns out to be as beautiful as the fit in the first paper you cited, I will concede I am wrong in my skepticism.

Have you looked for such a graph, and did you find one?

@brazil84

Why exactly did you cite it?

So that I could introduce you to the evidence of positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere. See posts #179 and 182.

@brazil84

I did present one piece of evidence, and I may present more if I can find the time.

I must have missed it - I haven’t seen you cite anything but the newspapers very early in the thread. Can you point me in the direction of your cite?
Part II - relates to other things, and is getting somewhat close to a hijack. We may want to start a separate thread on this. Suffice it to say that I am in agreement with Richard Feynman in the quote below:

@Richard Feynman

When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

I do not believe “proof” has any useful meaning in science, although it does in mathematics.

I do not believe “facts” represent absolute truth.

I believe the melting point of gold is good enough to refer to as “fact” in the present and past.

I do not believe anything can be referred to as a “fact” in the future. Lack of the ability to observe the future is the philosophical objection to that. It is irrelevant beyond that comment.

@brazil84

:shrug: The bottom line is that you should have inserted the qualifier “according to some climatologists” into your statement.

Nonsense. That would be redundant. Look at the bolded portion of my original statement from back in post #152:

@wevets

Well, think about it – 450 ppm translates to a likely increase of 1.5 to 3.5°C with the likeliest outcome of about 2.5°C global average temperature increase (see Harris et al. 2006. Frequency distributions of transient regional climate change from perturbed physics ensembles of general circulation model simulations. Climate Dynamics v. 27, n. 4, 357-375.)

I told you exactly who it was according to and where you could look it up in the statement you’re objecting to.

[brazil84]

@wevets

But you already believe in AGW.

It depends how you define “AGW.”

Earlier, I asked this question:

@brazil84

Let’s see if I have this straight: According to you, the AGW hypothesis holds that (1) human activities, including but not necessarily limited to CO2 emissions, are the primary reason for recent increases in global surface temperatures; and (2) human activities, including but not necessarily limited to CO2 emissions, will cause temperature increases in the future.

Is that right?

Why can’t you answer it?

Have you looked for such a graph, and did you find one?

Yes I have. As far as I know, nobody accurately predicted, 5 years ago, how temperatures would go through today. Most alarmists I have debated with have claimed that the models cannot accurate predict global temperatures over a 5-year time period. Conveniently delaying falsification for 20 or 30 years.

You are the first person I’ve debated who has claimed that models can accurately predict temps over a 5 year time period. I’d love to see some proof.

So that I could introduce you to the evidence of positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere. See posts #179 and 182.

:shrug: the only “evidence” in that paper, as far as I can tell, was a computer simulation.

I must have missed it - I haven’t seen you cite anything but the newspapers very early in the thread. Can you point me in the direction of your cite?

The evidence I cited was the fact that the climate has been somewhat stable for a long time. Would you like a post number?

I do not believe “proof” has any useful meaning in science, although it does in mathematics.

I note that you ignored my question about whether it’s been scientifically proven that regular smoking increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer.

I suspect it’s because you know perfectly well that any reasonable person would agree as follows:

(1) Yes, it’s been scientifically proven that regular smoking increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer;

(2) “scientifically proven” does not mean absolute proof in some mathematical sense. It means only that the evidence makes us confident of the hypothesis.

When I stated that you have the burden of proof, I obviously was using the word “proof” in this sense - the sense that any reasonable person would use. The sense that you yourself would probably use if you told your children that smoking has been proven to cause cancer.

But instead of using the obvious definition, you decided to misinterpret my words and use a different definition of “proof,” which you could then attack as being inappropriate in science. Well, duh.

Simply put, you erected a big straw man, then proceeded to tear it down. Please just admit it and let go.

I believe the melting point of gold is good enough to refer to as “fact” in the present and past.

Whatever. Most reasonable people would agree with the following statement:

It is a scientific fact that the melting point of gold is 1064C.

Anyway, it was obvious what I meant by the phrase “scientific fact.”

[jshore]

@brazil84

I note that you ignored my question about whether it’s been scientifically proven that regular smoking increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer.

I suspect it’s because you know perfectly well that any reasonable person would agree as follows:

(1) Yes, it’s been scientifically proven that regular smoking increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer;

(2) “scientifically proven” does not mean absolute proof in some mathematical sense. It means only that the evidence makes us confident of the hypothesis.

When I stated that you have the burden of proof, I obviously was using the word “proof” in this sense - the sense that any reasonable person would use. The sense that you yourself would probably use if you told your children that smoking has been proven to cause cancer.

But instead of using the obvious definition, you decided to misinterpret my words and use a different definition of “proof,” which you could then attack as being inappropriate in science. Well, duh.

And yet, your very own example shows the problem with this. Most scientists believed there was sufficient evidence (“proof” by your definition) that smoking causes cancer for a long time before the tobacco companies and their pet scientists abandoned the claim that there was still significant uncertainty. In fact, our lesson from the case of cigarettes works exactly against your arguments: It is that, because there is no such thing as “proof” in science, people with a vested interest or strong biases will continue to claim there is not proof for something long after most reasonable people have found the evidence sufficient.

In other words, you can continue to argue that there is “no proof of CAGW” long after all the reputable scientific bodies of the world have looked at the evidence and decided that the evidence is sufficient to convince them of the reality of this. And, it is exactly because “proof” does not have any sort of rigorous meaning in science like it does in mathematics.

And, it is perhaps no coincidence that some of the veterans from the tobacco wars, i.e., some of the very same people who were trying to tell us that the evidence of deleterious health effects regarding cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke was uncertain, are now working the “global warming” beat (e.g., Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, and Steven Milloy who runs junkscience.com).

[brazil84]

@jshore

And yet, your very own example shows the problem with this. Most scientists believed there was sufficient evidence (“proof” by your definition) that smoking causes cancer for a long time before the tobacco companies and their pet scientists abandoned the claim that there was still significant uncertainty. In fact, our lesson from the case of cigarettes works exactly against your arguments: It is that, because there is no such thing as “proof” in science, people with a vested interest or strong biases will continue to claim there is not proof for something long after most reasonable people have found the evidence sufficient.

Lol. Did you even bother to read my post?

Here’s what I said earlier:

By the way, my only point in asking this question is to show that it’s silly to claim that the concept of “proof” has no place in science. I am not saying that I will accept a scientific hypothesis only if it has been demonstrated with the level of certainty that exists for smoking/lung cancer.

I said that because I was pretty confident that somebody would come along and try to distract from the issue by setting up the strawman you tried to set up.

Let me ask you this: Do you agree that the proponents of the CAGW hypothesis have the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to instill confidence that the hypothesis is correct?

[jshore]

@brazil84

I said that because I was pretty confident that somebody would come along and try to distract from the issue by setting up the strawman you tried to set up.

You are the one setting up strawmen. I am talking about the actual situation that has occurred in the discussion of the dangers of smoking and in discussing global warming.

Let me ask you this: Do you agree that the proponents of the CAGW hypothesis have the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to instill confidence that the hypothesis is correct?

They have the burden of doing this within the scientific community of their peers, which they have quite clearly done. They don’t have the burden of convincing every Tom, Dick, and brazil84.

[brazil84]

@jshore

You are the one setting up strawmen. I am talking about the actual situation that has occurred in the discussion of the dangers of smoking and in discussing global warming.

Which was 100% irrelevant to my point.

They have the burden of doing this within the scientific community of their peers, which they have quite clearly done. They don’t have the burden of convincing every Tom, Dick, and brazil84.

Since you dodged the question, I will answer it for you: The burden of proof is firmly on those who are pushing the CAGW hypothesis.

And by the way, if you really believe that debate over the CAGW hypothesis is somehow meaningless outside of the scientific community, then please stop participating in this discussion.

[jshore]

@brazil84

Since you dodged the question, I will answer it for you: The burden of proof is firmly on those who are pushing the CAGW hypothesis.

No. Once a hypothesis has gained widespread acceptance within the scientific community, the burden of proof shifts to those who want to dislodge it. I can’t just come along and say, “I don’t believe in all this quantum field theory hooey, and it is up to you to prove to me that it is correct.” Well, technically, I could do that…but I would be treated with the contempt that I deserve if I did so. The scientists would tell me to go and read the necessary background and then if I still don’t agree with it, try to articulate this by writing up something for publication and submitting it to a scientific journal. They don’t owe me anything. There is no burden on them whatsoever.

[brazil84]

@jshore

No. Once a hypothesis has gained widespread acceptance within the scientific community, the burden of proof shifts to those who want to dislodge it. I can’t just come along and say, “I don’t believe in all this quantum field theory hooey, and it is up to you to prove to me that it is correct.” Well, technically, I could do that…but I would be treated with the contempt that I deserve if I did so.

Such a challenge is not deserving of contempt at all. You need simply present the same proofs that supposedly convinced the scientific community.

In any event, I am skeptical that CAGW has been “accepted” by the scientific community.

[brazil84]

P.S. jshore, you are not denying that proponents of CAGW bear the burden of proof – you are simply claiming that the burden has been met already, in another forum.

If you do not wish to debates the merits of CAGW here, because (according to you) the issue has been settled in another forum which takes precedence over this one, that’s your right. But what kills your credibility is that you seem to take this position selectively – when it suits your purposes.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

In any event, I am skeptical that CAGW has been “accepted” by the scientific community.

If every major scientific organization doesn’t represent the scientific community, who does? Lindzen?

What do you consider consensus anyway? Unanimous agreement? Is 5% dissent OK? 10%?

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

If every major scientific organization doesn’t represent the scientific community

Please quote and cite the EXACT language of these “scientific organizations” which shows that they accept the CAGW hypothesis.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

Please quote and cite the EXACT language of these “scientific organizations” which shows that they accept the CAGW hypothesis.

Read the cite. Be sure to scroll up, there’s plenty of quotes. Lots of groups endorsing the IPCC’s Fourth Report, which means endorsing the findings of WGII, which findings are catastrophic enough for me. YMMV, and since you seem to have the C of CAGW as your bugbear, it probably does.

[MrDibble]

And do answer the question I asked - what do you consider consensus on anything to be?

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

Read the cite. Be sure to scroll up, there’s plenty of quotes.

I picked one at random:

"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk… We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol

Sorry, but that’s not a statement accepting the CAGW hypothesis. Among other things, it says nothing about CO2; and it’s mainly a prescriptive (not descriptive) statement.

what do you consider consensus on anything to be?

It would depend on the reason you wanted to use the concept of “consensus.” I have not claimed that a “consensus” does or does not exist. So it’s not incumbent on me to define that term.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

I picked one at random:
Sorry, but that’s not a statement accepting the CAGW hypothesis. Among other things, it says nothing about CO2; and it’s mainly a prescriptive (not descriptive) statement.

My boldings:

Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk… We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol

I believe your reading comprehension needs work. A lot of work. What about “addressing emissions” and “Kyoto Protocol” in the same statement “says nothing” about CO[sub]2[/sub] to you? And what about “acting swiftly” to avert “economic, social and environmental risk” isn’t an acceptance of “CAGW”?

And what does it matter if it’s prescriptive or descriptive? It contains an implicit acceptance of AGCC as fact - like you haven’t understood in other places in this thread, every statement about climate change doesn’t have to make the case for it anymore, because that work’s been done. Just like I don’t have to lay out the entire theory of evolution every time I argue with an IDer, climate change proponents now have the luxury of not wasting their time debating naysayers every…single…fucking…time…they…say…anything - because their side has the consensus.

@brazil84

It would depend on the reason you wanted to use the concept of “consensus.”

Dodging the question - you know exactly in what context I asked the question.

@brazil84

I have not claimed that a “consensus” does or does not exist.

Semantic games - you said

I am skeptical that CAGW has been “accepted” by the scientific community.

The word “consensus” may not appear there, but that makes no difference.

@brazil84

So it’s not incumbent on me to define that term.

I’m not asking you to define the term consensus, I’m asking you what percentage of dissent you’d allow climate scientists to have, and still agree that they have a “consensus”, or “accept” CAGW, or whatever phrase you find most accpetable that carries the same meaning. I’m asking you, in other words, what percentage of agreement would make you think that the argument that there is no consensus is likely to be wrong?