Global warming slowdown could last another decade

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf,
here is a direct link to the source article.
theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

Here is a link to the published paper.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034864/abstract

Are you familiar with the **Tu Quoque **logical fallacy?
You seem to indulge in it frequently here, when you don’t like were a legitimate story is shared.

Do you mean Tu Quoque as defined by Wikipedia? That does not appear to apply. But you are right. The validity of an argument should not depend on where the argument came from. That is why my parenthetical observation about the source (which I should have omitted) was not the basis for my criticism of the claim. The basis of my criticism was the inapplicability of a failure of one prediction from 2009 to tarnish completely separate predictions made in other scientific papers. Over the last several decades there have been probably thousands of scientific papers written, many of them about climate change. Cherry picking several such papers whose predictions were not as accurate as you would like has no statistical implications for scientific research in general unless you use a more unbiased sampling technique to select from all papers on climate research, so that you could say something like “X% of all climate change predictions failed to come true”.

 

[freeRadical]

I gave two counter examples which totally demolished that premise.

Those counter examples did not demolish my premise unless you can show me why climate would behave like those two counter examples you provided

I was not the who tried to analyze climate trends by analogy to other fields of study. It is not up to me to prove that climate trends are not like macroeconomics. It is up to you to prove they are, since you are the one who made the claim.

I never claimed that climate behaved like macroeconomics. I merely said, it seems like climate scientists are making the same mistake that macroeconomists make. Thankfully, that trend is changing, at least in economics.

 

[freeRadical]

Sorry, but there’s only one correct answer here

No, there is not. You display the same arrogance that climate scientists display about their models and predictions. “We are right, even when we are wrong.”

Again, I’m not sure what field you come in from, but your experience evidently doesn’t translate into climate.

That’s your opinion.

If you are unwilling to hear how it does work in climate science, that’s your choice.

But you see, I do understand how it works in climate science. Is it not possible that I do understand the models and their predictions but I disagree with them? Or is that too unbelievable to you?

It seems like you think that if someone understands climate science then the only possible response is to believe these model and predictions. If you don’t believe, then you don’t “truly” understand. Is that about right?

I don’t have time for this appeal to authority nonsense.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Those counter examples did not demolish my premise unless you can show me why climate would behave like those two counter examples you provided.

If it did not demolish it, at least it reduced your statement to an unsubstantiated hypothesis. By the way, how were you going to prove that complete understanding of the micro elements of an aggregation are necessary to understanding anything meaningful about the macro behavior of that aggregation?

 

[chris_colose]

No, there is not. You display the same arrogance that climate scientists display about their models and predictions. “We are right, even when we are wrong.”

That’s your opinion.

But you see, I do understand how it works in climate science. Is it not possible that I do understand the models and their predictions but I disagree with them? Or is that too unbelievable to you?

It seems like you think that if someone understands climate science then the only possible response is to believe these model and predictions. If you don’t believe, then you don’t “truly” understand. Is that about right?

I don’t have time for this appeal to authority nonsense.

None of this has to do with how much you believe future predictions or my opinion. You made very specific claims about model skill and how climate works as a collective system. These claims are demonstrably false, completely independent of model predictive value.

Since your view stands contrary to decades of research on this, you don’t trust experts, already said I shouldn’t bother explaining how all this does work in climate, and since you aren’t going to justify your claims outside of personal experience in some other field, we’re left with no possibility for dialogue. This is probably unhealthy for all parties (like this) so I’ll leave it at that until one of these items displays some degree of flexibility.

 

[chris_colose]

If it did not demolish it, at least it reduced your statement to an unsubstantiated hypothesis. By the way, how were you going to prove that complete understanding of the micro elements of an aggregation are necessary to understanding anything meaningful about the macro behavior of that aggregation?

You did demolish it. The logic was:

—Systems of the type “A” exhibit behavior “B”

You showed:

—These examples of system “A” do not exhibit “B”
:. Not all “A” exhibit “B” behavior.

The argument is over until climate-specific examples are discussed. Otherwise, this is just a Van Gogh fallacy.

 

[Theo520]

Do you mean Tu Quoque as defined by Wikipedia? That does not appear to apply. But you are right. The validity of an argument should not depend on where the argument came from. That is why my parenthetical observation about the source (which I should have omitted) was not the basis for my criticism of the claim. The basis of my criticism was the inapplicability of a failure of one prediction from 2009 to tarnish completely separate predictions made in other scientific papers. Over the last several decades there have been probably thousands of scientific papers written, many of them about climate change. Cherry picking several such papers whose predictions were not as accurate as you would like has no statistical implications for scientific research in general unless you use a more unbiased sampling technique to select from all papers on climate research, so that you could say something like “X% of all climate change predictions failed to come true”.

Apologies, it was more of an Ad Hominem argument, attacking the source as if relevant rather than the content

I never said this one model represented all models, but it does articulate why there is antagonism against alarmists.

I’ll believe the models that pass the scientific method.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sorry, but there’s only one correct answer here. ‘Skill’ can be defined and mathematically formulated; the output of climate models e.g., in cmip5, are publicly accessible. You cannot just make up a fact about what models don’t do when they do it. There’s zero ambiguity here. Again, I’m not sure what field you come in from, but your experience evidently doesn’t translate into climate. If you are unwilling to hear how it does work in climate science, that’s your choice.

Many are unwilling…

So much for my 8th grade science class when I learned the “boy scout list” that a scientist is honest, open-minded, …

The anti-environmental CC skeptics are intransigent. There is no amount of science, evidence, observations, theory, or laws of physics that can convince them one iota that the climate has warmed significantly since, say, 1970, and most of that has been due to human activities – GHG emissions, land use. They disrespect anyone with a great deal expertise on climate change.

Thanks for all your knowledge and efforts, Chris. You are appreciated. And there are those who do not post who would have also learned a great deal from you and appreciate your explanations.

According to my research Catholics are more likely to accept AGW than non-Catholics, and the past 3 popes accept AGW and have told us all to mitigate it. Some claim they are not scientists and don’t know what they’re talking about, but our current pope is a scientist, so they can’t say that anymore.

Our current Pope Francis is expected to come out with an encyclical on the environment, but I can predict now that there are some Catholics who are not going to accept what he has to say.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You did demolish it. The logic was:

—Systems of the type “A” exhibit behavior “B”

You showed:

—These examples of system “A” do not exhibit “B”
:. Not all “A” exhibit “B” behavior.

The argument is over until climate-specific examples are discussed. Otherwise, this is just a Van Gogh fallacy.

To really demolish it I would have had to prove the assertion with respect to climate change was false. To be fair, I did not do that. I merely showed that the logic behind the assertion was faulty. That leaves open the possibility that it is true, even though the author did nothing to advance the assertion other than stating it. Not that I think the assertion can’t be demolished. I am just too lazy to do that right now.

 

[chris_colose]

Many are unwilling…

So much for my 8th grade science class when I learned the “boy scout list” that a scientist is honest, open-minded, …

The anti-environmental CC skeptics are intransigent. There is no amount of science, evidence, observations, theory, or laws of physics that can convince them one iota that the climate has warmed significantly since, say, 1970, and most of that has been due to human activities – GHG emissions, land use. They disrespect anyone with a great deal expertise on climate change.

Thanks for all your knowledge and efforts, Chris. You are appreciated. And there are those who do not post who would have also learned a great deal from you and appreciate your explanations.

According to my research Catholics are more likely to accept AGW than non-Catholics, and the past 3 popes accept AGW and have told us all to mitigate it. Some claim they are not scientists and don’t know what they’re talking about, but our current pope is a scientist, so they can’t say that anymore.

Our current Pope Francis is expected to come out with an encyclical on the environment, but I can predict now that there are some Catholics who are not going to accept what he has to say.

There is a lot of evidence that people’s beliefs about climate change reflect who they are, not what they know (e.g., read this). There is also substantial research that increased information is likely to only reinforce what members of the public already believe, regardless of whether that interpretation is correct. Unfortunately, I am not a communicator, have finite patience, and even less finite understanding of how communication experts recommend to go about this stuff. I would be happy if a couple people learned something, but I don’t actually expect to get someone excited enough to read a textbook or take a grad class.

In this case, the discussion of models aren’t actually about models. No one has actually said anything about climate models as they presently exist. The discussion is rather a proxy argument for what people believe about climate change. Showing someone a model that performs well for some metric of the climate wouldn’t actually result in a “oh hey, I was wrong, this is serious stuff I should learn about!” or “hey, this model actually does do something right!” And actually, it is very easy to convince me that models perform poorly for some other metrics of the climate. Part of the job of scientists is to synthesize this information, learn new details, while being able to see the forest for the trees. This is why the only sensible way to approach any technical topic is to consult experts and the relevant scientific literature (and assessments of that literature, not just single papers). That’s not a logical fallacy, it’s common sense, except on special issues (climate, evolution) where worldviews, politics, or ideologies conflict with scientific understanding.

 

[lynnvinc]

There is a lot of evidence that people’s beliefs about climate change reflect who they are, not what they know (e.g., read this). There is also substantial research that increased information is likely to only reinforce what members of the public already believe, regardless of whether that interpretation is correct. Unfortunately, I am not a communicator, have finite patience, and even less finite understanding of how communication experts recommend to go about this stuff. I would be happy if a couple people learned something, but I don’t actually expect to get someone excited enough to read a textbook or take a grad class.

In this case, the discussion of models aren’t actually about models. No one has actually said anything about climate models as they presently exist. The discussion is rather a proxy argument for what people believe about climate change. Showing someone a model that performs well for some metric of the climate wouldn’t actually result in a “oh hey, I was wrong, this is serious stuff I should learn about!” or “hey, this model actually does do something right!” And actually, it is very easy to convince me that models perform poorly for some other metrics of the climate. Part of the job of scientists is to synthesize this information, learn new details, while being able to see the forest for the trees. This is why the only sensible way to approach any technical topic is to consult experts and the relevant scientific literature (and assessments of that literature, not just single papers). That’s not a logical fallacy, it’s common sense, except on special issues (climate, evolution) where worldviews, politics, or ideologies conflict with scientific understanding.

I actually got my raw data from the Yale folks.

I found that while 68% of Catholics in American accept that global warming is happening and is mainly human-caused, only 62% of non-Catholics did.

One could possibly attribute that to the impact of our hierarchy, with bishops and popes accepting this and telling the people to mitigate GW and/or the religion that has a strong social justice (caring and sharing) component, and would have issues with some people around the world and into the future getting a raw deal re GW impacts.

I’ll bet that even Protestants engaged in charitable works are more likely to accept GW than Protestants who are not so engaged. Same way, political conservatives engaged in charitable works may be more likely to accept GW than those who are not. An interesting hypothesis to test.

A point that is often brought up here is that GW policies will harm the poor…so they are trying to frame it that way within Church teachings – but without considering GW will harm the poor or that there could be policies that actually help the poor (e.g., by making them more energy/resource efficient/conservative and helping them get alt energy).

My social problems prof told us first day of class “There is no problem without solutions; it is only a matter of whether we want to solve them or not.”

So my understanding is they really don’t want to solve this problem. They really don’t want people to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative or get more onto alt energy and off fossil fuels. Maybe they are afraid of offending the Fossil Fuel Gods, who will then take their goodies away from them. Or maybe they just work for or are invested in fossil fuels. They don’t acknowledge that fossil fuels are involved harms from extraction, processing, burning, wastes. No such thing a local pollution, acid rain, cancer alleys in processing areas, etc. These are all part of the leftist conspiracy theories to take over the world.

In my state if officials want to find out if fracking causes air pollution (as nearby residents chokingly claim), they place the air monitoring stations 20 miles away and (surprise) find no pollution. Same way they take the lower margin of error for water pollution, and test monitoring wells off the benzene plumes. We have no problems, they claim, tho people continue to get sick and die from leukemia and other diseases caused by the problems.

 

[freeRadical]

If it did not demolish it, at least it reduced your statement to an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

It did no such thing.

By the way, how were you going to prove that complete understanding of the micro elements of an aggregation are necessary to understanding anything meaningful about the macro behavior of that aggregation?

I don’t believe I ever said that. There is a difference between meaningful and 100% certainty.

 

[freeRadical]

None of this has to do with how much you believe future predictions or my opinion. You made very specific claims about model skill and how climate works as a collective system. These claims are demonstrably false, completely independent of model predictive value.

They are not false.

Since your view stands contrary to decades of research on this, you don’t trust experts, already said I shouldn’t bother explaining how all this does work in climate, and since you aren’t going to justify your claims outside of personal experience in some other field, we’re left with no possibility for dialogue.

I already told you, I understand how it all works in climate. But it seems that is somehow unfathomable to you because I do not agree with current climate models or predictions. Another case of, “You do not agree, so you must not understand.”

Decades of research? Don’t trust experts? I told you that I don’t have time for this appeal to authority stuff.

I am an expert in modeling. I understand how climate works. I don’t agree with certain “experts” models or predictions. Is that so hard to believe? Apparently it is because you have to lapse into the some old “you don’t really understand” appeal to authority stuff.

 

[chris_colose]

They are not false.

I already told you, I understand how it all works in climate. But it seems that is somehow unfathomable to you because I do not agree with current climate models or predictions. Another case of, “You do not agree, so you must not understand.”

Decades of research? Don’t trust experts? I told you that I don’t have time for this appeal to authority stuff.

I am an expert in modeling. I understand how climate works. I don’t agree with certain “experts” models or predictions. Is that so hard to believe? Apparently it is because you have to lapse into the some old “you don’t really understand” appeal to authority stuff.

Cool, I’ll await your publications on the matter.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t believe I ever said that. There is a difference between meaningful and 100% certainty.

And which do you suppose we need from our climate models?

 

[Arandur]

Our current Pope Francis is expected to come out with an encyclical on the environment, but I can predict now that there are some Catholics who are not going to accept what he has to say.

I just have to point out that general statements about moral guidelines are within the Church’s purview, while specific endorsement of scientific hypotheses or prescriptive approaches are both unlikely and non-binding. The charism of infallibility does not rest on these. We are told time and again of the place of prudential judgment and the need for some freedom even in many theological matters and matters of discipline, to say nothing of areas outside the core competency (and infallible guidance) of the Church.

This is why the Church, while providing general social doctrines and principles of moral government, does not endorse particular governmental systems or policies.

Moreover, modern popes tend to take strong positions in some areas as a matter of consistency, principle, and politics, even when the doctrine of the Church provides for some flexibility – such as matters of the death penalty and Just War. But just as peace advocacy does not require unilateral disarmament of militaries; and preferential options for the poor do not mean the abolition of wealth or personal property; so too would environmental stewardship not require that we pursue every policy intended to minimize negative human impacts.

So even if Pope Francis were a world-renowned researcher in environmental sciences and environmental policy as it impacts government, society, and economics, with a whole staff of similar experts, particular policies judgments in this area are not matters of religious assent or faith.

That said, I respect greatly the things that Benedict XVI said about government, science, and the environment, because he is an exceptionally wise and logical thinker, well-guided by the moral and rational traditions of the Church. I wouldn’t wholly agree that some of his positions would apply in particular issues of American politics, but I certainly would take his opinions into consideration.

So, too, with Pope Francis’s, who has stated that much of his own thinking on these subjects aligns with and is inspired by the Pope-Emeritus.

 

[lynnvinc]

I just have to point out that general statements about moral guidelines are within the Church’s purview, while specific endorsement of scientific hypotheses or prescriptive approaches are both unlikely and non-binding. The charism of infallibility does not rest on these.

I.e., we don’t have to believe in gravity. Cool. I think I’ll fly away home now

JPII did say about evolution, “Truth [God, religious truth] cannot contradict truth [science of evolution, scientific “truth”].”

This is instructive because we should not out-of-hand deny the conclusions that the vast majority of climate scientists have come to, that AGW is happening and is expected to have severe negative impacts to human welfare. Those who do so are stepping outside the thrust and thinking of church doctrine that includes “Thou shalt not kill.”

No one likes to face up to the fact that certain actions they engage in may be harmful to others. I understand that. Cain understood that. Adam understood that. But that’s the unpleasant part of the religion. And thank God we have confession, Acts of Contrition, forgiveness and redemption to help us over this rough part.

 

[Mark121359]

Oh gee…another global warming thread. And the same insinuations that I’m probably ticketed for “fiery Gehenna” if I don’t conform!..:tsktsk:

Peace, Mark

 

[chris_colose]

Oh gee…another global warming thread. And the same insinuations that I’m probably ticketed for “fiery Gehenna” if I don’t conform!..:tsktsk:

Peace, Mark

The level of discussion both sides can be raised. I’d prefer to stick to science rather than accusations, insinuations, and general logical fallacies. The problem is that public understanding of climate science/evolution is correlated to political worldviews and how we view the world, not what we know about science. People can actually accept science while still believing what they want about other issues such as government control, religion, etc, but these issues continue to get conflated.

 

[lynnvinc]

Oh gee…another global warming thread. And the same insinuations that I’m probably ticketed for “fiery Gehenna” if I don’t conform!..:tsktsk:

Peace, Mark

Well, I’m no moral theologian so I really don’t know one way or the other if contributing to AGW is a sin (serious or venial), or an imperfection, or something that is okay to do, not worthy of being considered wrong in the least.

What prompted me to start mitigation back in 1990 was not a fear of Hell, but rather a strong distaste and bad feeling I had for contributing to droughts in Africa and to people’s starvation, and other harms thought to be enhanced or made more likely by AGW.

Maybe I’m just overly sensitive. I don’t really meet hardly anyone who thinks and feels as I do about this issue. My husband generally tells me to shut up about it already…tho he does accept AGW and goes along with our mitigation measures, and completely denies that there are any CC skeptics out there…and doesn’t really want to know one way or the other.

And it’s weird, because I had known about the harms for several years, and then one day in 1990 (it was during my novitiate year in OCDS when I as looking more closely at my sins and imperfections) I had this sudden shift from “Why don’t they do something about this problem,” to “I have to do something about this problem. I’m contributing to it and I need to reduce my contributions to it.”

I consider that a grace from God, not something I came up with on my own. You can consider it sheer lunacy, if you wish (as my husband does ).