APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Mikee]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Thanks, Mike, for taking the time. 

Is there anyone on what you call "my side" whose opinions (or scientific work) you respect? As you know, I spent several weeks following and reporting on the APS statement -- and was especially interested in the Workshop cited back a few pages (which link I will insert). In that workshop were six well-known scientists (in the broad field of climatology): Isaac Held, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Ben Santer and William Collins. It was a fascinating and not-too technical discussion between the six. You might be interested in the presentation by Collins, which begins on page 17.  He is one of the people in the world who constructs climate models. His interactions with the 'other side' are civil, even friendly, especially between him and Curry. 

In another post I laid out what I foresee that will change my opinions about Anthropogenic Global Warming, by reference to the Arctic. In your mental models of the issue, is there something that will tend to convince you to alter or update/change your opinions?  The more general question would be, is discussion worthwhile for you, on this issue, on this topic? Or are you done with 'my side'?

 

Years ago I researched a number of sources like this one:  http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/

I like Alex Epstein http://industrialprogress.com/about/

I believe the danger of ending human progress by establishing centralized government control over every human action and destroying the market system is infinitely more likely and harmful to human thriving than a degree or two of warming.  I think it is unlikely the earth will warm faster than human ingenuity is capable of compensating for it as long as people are free to innovate and have the power sources and technology to work with.  At any rate I'm convinced the predictions are bunk and driven by the self interest of the academics to prattle on about it.  Recognition, grant money, self righteous preening, the admiration of their peers etc.  No matter how much they rattle on and give the impression of certainty I don't think certainty is there to be had.  So given their political ends and self interest I believe they are doing no less than lying.  I believe if you claim to be certain of something and you are not that is a form of lying.  And I think people do it all the time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Mikee said:

At any rate I'm convinced the predictions are bunk and driven by the self interest of the academics to prattle on about it.  Recognition, grant money, self righteous preening, the admiration of their peers etc.  No matter how much they rattle on and give the impression of certainty I don't think certainty is there to be had.  So given their political ends and self interest I believe they are doing no less than lying.  I believe if you claim to be certain of something and you are not that is a form of lying.  And I think people do it all the time.

Mike,

People within the climate change movement will take a comment like what you just made, blink, then ignore it as they come out with more data dumps they know nobody understands or cares about (and interpreted according to their agenda to boot), more citing of the liars, more intimidation, etc.

They just don't think telling the truth is important. Instead, like you say, they prefer the posture of certainty irrespective of how often the data and computer models have to be "reinterpreted."

But they will care now that the US government money is going to dry up.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The data was contained in relatively fresh additions to a satellite dataset.

Which one was used in the Daily Mail article? Well, according to author Rose, the NASA satellite measurements of "global surface temperatures over land." As it turns out, he was slightly mistaken about this being a NASA product. It is from Remote Sensing Systems, which is a private company that offers products. From their "Measurements" page, "RSS currently provides 10 different data products based on microwave sounding measurements."

Okay, which one?  The Mail article does not say, and the graph with the article has no  attribution. There is a clue followed by readers and confirmed by Rose on Twitter -- he populated his graph with data from the product called TLT -- which signifies Total Lower Tropospheric Temperature. 

In other words, NOT 'surface temperatures.' An important distinction.  As the crew at RSS puts it: 

TLT is constructed by calculating a weighted difference between MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements from near limb views and measurements from the same channels taken closer to nadir, as can be seen in Figure 2 for the case of MSU. This has the effect of extrapolating the MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements lower in the troposphere, and removing most of the stratospheric influence. Because of the difference involves measurements made at different locations, and because of the large absolute values of the weights used, additional noise is added by this process, increasing the uncertainty in the final results. 

So, here is the graph from Rose:

This is a depiction of the matching data from RSS:

Why do we care?  Doesn't the total lower troposphere temperature measure something noteworthy?  Yes, I think so, and especially when compared to other products based on the same ensemble of satellite readings (those details some other time).

Why we care is because of the trend.  Not simply fluctuations due to cyclical variability, but the direction in which the lower troposphere readings are heading. In Rose's graph, he has not included a trend line.  Here is the TLT rendered data with a trend line:

-- remember, this is atmospheric temperature over land only.  It is definitely interesting in context, but not what Rose claims. Rose has taken two points to claim that a new trend is upon us.

Somebody might ask "do these particular points reported by the deprecated TLT version correspond well to the other products?"  The answer is no. 

To a less overwrought point, I would be in agreement with Rose:  in the absence of a strong El Nino, at the end of the oscillation, we should expect a relative flattening of the short-term trend.  To my mind it is to be expected. The El Nino phenomenon will tend to drive up  beyond the trend over a short term. The El Nino coming to an end does not mean, however, that global warming is over. 

Well, that's the way I see it, after puzzling over the issue with Rose himself directly and with a few other skeptics.  Even at the best 'Skeptic' blog, WUWT, commentators have pointed out the misleading aspects of the article.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, right?

Wrong, in terms of discussion writ large, but in a sense quite true. When strong or sweeping claims are made, there is most often a critical reaction.  This is how issues of fact and import can be resolved, at least in theory. For me, hearing from one 'side' only is a doorway to error.

Weather porn!  From Climate Reanalyzer:

 

 

It's not the science. It's the politics.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's not the science. It's the politics.

Brant,

Yup.

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.
By Roger Pielke Jr.
Dec. 2, 2016
Wall Street Journal

This is behind a paywall, but the opening that is visible says volumes:

Quote

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

There are full articles about this available without a paywall, though. Here's one from yesterday from The Daily Caller, written by Chris White:

Climate Expert Says Science Under Attack By Academics And Biased Media

From the article:

Quote

... there was a valuable lesson to be learned, according to the former climate researcher: “A lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House.”

“If academics,” he added, “are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome.”

And this guy Pielke even supports a goddam carbon tax. He's practically a spokesman for the globalist pipedream (or wet dream ) of worldwide centralized taxation. 

The ruling class eat their own when their talking points are not on the menu...

They mean business, too--their business. No exceptions.

They think it's great if truth can be included in this business, but it's not a requirement.

Not to worry. It's "oh shit" time for them. Along comes Trump...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 11/30/2016 at 2:01 PM, william.scherk said:

A clue to what the Pizzagate Satanic** Clintonists think they can get away with...

Alex Jones thinks Pizzagate might be a sacrificed pawn in the ruling class and MSM chess game.

The idea is that there is a ton of nasty crap in the WikiLeaks emails. But, for some reason, the mainstream media prefers to focus all it's righteous indignation and outrage on accusations by the right against one establishment, which may or may not be involved.

If it turns out the pizza restaurant is innocent and if the mainstream media can get the public to think the entire scandal ONLY involves the pizza restaurant, this story will go away and, maybe, even stop being investigated by law enforcement. That's what they hope, anyway.

By focusing only on the pizza restaurant, all the other sleazy crap is being set aside. It's a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the real problem.

And then there's this:

What about the sexually abused children?

Who gets to be their voice?

Who cares about them?

Corporate media?

Riiiiiight...

Michael

[william.scherk]

18 hours ago, Mikee said:

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 The more general question would be, is discussion worthwhile for you, on this issue, on this topic? Or are you done with 'my side'?

I'm convinced the predictions are bunk and driven by the self interest of the academics to prattle on about it.  Recognition, grant money, self righteous preening, the admiration of their peers etc.  No matter how much they rattle on and give the impression of certainty I don't think certainty is there to be had.  So given their political ends and self interest I believe they are doing no less than lying.  I believe if you claim to be certain of something and you are not that is a form of lying.  And I think people do it all the time.

Is discussion worthwhile? Looks like it isn't. Looks like you may be done with 'my side.' Certainty is certainly a barrier.  Or maybe not.

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.
By Roger Pielke Jr.
Dec. 2, 2016
Wall Street Journal

This is behind a paywall, but the opening that is visible says volumes:

The bulk of the editorial is republished at Watts Up With That.  It makes a good, if one-sided, read. and the comments following are a scream.  Bear in mind that Pielke is on 'my side' -- he is neither a contrarian, nor a denialist, nor a lukewarmer. "My research was attacked,"  is true. And that is a whole week's worth of reading in itself.

 Although his doctorate is in political science, his research 'attacked' was on 'extreme weather.' His work suggests that although global warming via anthropogenic  CO2 is real and present and perhaps dangerous -- the toll of extreme weather (hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts) is not increasing because of it.  That is certainly a strong claim, and it attracted 'attacks' ...  such is the world of being an 'activist' when your work moves from the scientific literature into the forum of public opinion.  An opinion expressed on blog, news site, in interviews, or at 538 attracts ... opinion, some feverishly stupid and nasty and uninformed, sometimes civil and to the issues, not the man.

I've been following the various controversies attached to Pielke for a few years. He is a 'blue dog' Democrat. He testified to Congress contra the notion that the Bush administration unduly politicized climate-science. He ''believes" in anthropogenic global warming. As the WSJ editorial says, "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax."

At the outset, politics. At the onset, politics. At the offset, uncertainty. In the margins, advocacy. 

Anyway, some context:

• The Podesta email (sorry, no Pizzagate!)
• The 538 Pielke article
• The 538 rebuttal (by Kerry Emanuel)
• The Abraham rebuttal (at HuffPo)
• The ThinkProgress article
• A SourceWatch article indexing controversies and including references to his published work
• A 2009 nasty blog post contra Pielke (by Joe Romm)
• An excellent blog post by Pielke**, which signals "Top 5 Climate Essays of 2014"
• A  Discover magazine blog interview with Pielke (by Keith Kloor) recommended
• Chapter 7 of Pielke's 2011 book, The Climate Fix -- "Disasters, Death and Destruction" 
• Wikileaks and Me, from November 14 this year
   

15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's not the science. It's the politics.

That's what Pielke says, essentially, and I think it is true.  

In the broadest sense -- in the USA more than any other jurisdiction -- 'belief' in one side or stripe or aspect of Climate Change is closely tied to political stripe. Thus the wacky 'warmunist' left wing (to be overgeneral) will fall in with the Naomi Oreskes of the world, whose catastrophism is evident. And the wacky right wing will ally with such marginal voices as Monckton of Brenchley (to be overgeneral): everything is a hoax, a scam, a scandal, a fraud.  Pick one extreme and get the label-gun.

In other words, rather than deciding a position informed by an independent assessment, the position may be predicted by adhesion to political ideology.  Scratch a Republican, reveal a 'denier.' Scratch a Democrat, reveal a 'catastrophist.' 

There is no middle ground, or grounds for discussion? No, yes, not at this moment, not at OL for now. Maybe.  At least until I understand what it would take to change a mind.   It strikes me odd that no one will state for the record what it would take to change opinion.  Maybe life is too short.

Get ready for "attacks" ... pick a 'side' and stick with it.

__________________________

** a quote from Dan Sarewitz in the entry:

"…the climate-change-as-apocalypse orthodoxy thereby radically narrows the range of viewpoints we are willing to tolerate and the range of options we are willing to consider for dealing with complex challenges to our well-being like natural disasters and infectious disease and poverty and civil strife."

Edited December 5, 2016 by william.scherk
hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In other words, rather than deciding a position informed by an independent assessment, the position may be predicted by adhesion to political ideology.  Scratch a Republican, reveal a 'denier.' Scratch a Democrat, reveal a 'catastrophist.' 

There is no middle ground, or grounds for discussion? No, yes, not at this moment, not at OL for now. Maybe.  At least until I understand what it would take to change a mind.   It strikes me odd that no one will state for the record what it would take to change opinion.

William,

It strikes me as odd that I write long posts saying what it would take, Mike, who you just quoted, says what it would take right in your quote, others say what it would take, and you won't even address the issue they state clearly.

The problem is money and power. Gobs and gobs and gobs of money and power.

The climate change people keep grubbing for massive money and power, not just in any particular institution, but over the entire human race. And they keep calling it science.

Let me see if I can find a term you will entertain.

Hmmmm...

Well... let's try this one.

Conflict of interest.

I presume you do understand what that means. Maybe that term will cut through your oddness anxieties and you will look at it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Meanwhile, back at the farm:

EDIT: Rush Limbaugh just weighed in on this, too.

Algore Visits Trump Tower

Typical quotes from that transcript:

Quote

By the way, you may have heard the Drive-Bys say that Trump believes climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the ChiComs.  He doesn't believe it was perpetrated by the ChiComs.  That's a joke that Trump tells.  But he does apparently believe that it is a hoax.

. . .

The pro-climate change people have done a great job of complicating this with a whole bunch of esoteric scientific lingo making it sound like it has the official imprimatur of people that wear white lab coats.  If they wear white lab coats, they have automatic credibility. They're either scientists or doctors or what have you.  The entire concept of man-made climate change is based on one thing, and that is computer models, not data, because there isn't any data. 

How many times do you hear a climate change prediction include something like, "And in the next year or two, temperatures are expected to rise one or two degrees centigrade"?  You never hear that, do you?  You always hear, "In 30 years, maybe 25, certainly in 50 years."  Well, I could predict something that's gonna happen 30 or 50 years from now and sound like a brain doing it.  They predict things 30, 50 years out; none of us are gonna be alive to know whether they're right or wrong.  

They're not gonna predict anything where the lack of data could show them to be lying about it...

. . .

... the climate change issue is all of communism wrapped up in one bundle.  Militant environmentalism actually is the new home for displaced communists after the Soviet Union imploded, and if the leftists and the communists promoting climate change -- if they were ever able to, via policy, realize their dreams -- we would have a worldwide communist government.  

That's among the many things that's very bad and wrong about all this.  But these are the people behind it and sponsoring it, and that's why it's so important that it has got to be shellacked and resisted.  And we've had some success, because it's not even in the top 10 of the most important issues to people -- and yet, look, you can't stop hearing about it, can you? No matter the fact they know people don't care. No matter the fact they know it's not that important to people. They keep drumming it into you.  

They want you to think it's your fault so that you will accept globally mandated behavioral controls, loss of freedom in order to "save the planet," to give your life meaning and all of that.

 

Michael

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: Another ice age or elongated cool spell would be no fun, but it would not be an extinction event. A long period of cold weather would lead to crop failures, higher death rates in the temperate and polar regions etc. end quote

How many degrees higher or lower in Fahrenheit would everyone like it to be? 

Recently Stephen Hawking morosely wrote for The Guardian: . . . . For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges: climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans. Together, they are a reminder that we are at the most dangerous moment in the development of humanity. We now have the technology to destroy the planet on which we live, but have not yet developed the ability to escape it. Perhaps in a few hundred years, we will have established human colonies amid the stars, but right now we only have one planet, and we need to work together to protect it.

To do that, we need to break down, not build up, barriers within and between nations. If we are to stand a chance of doing that, the world’s leaders need to acknowledge that they have failed and are failing the many. With resources increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, we are going to have to learn to share far more than at present. With not only jobs but entire industries disappearing, we must help people to retrain for a new world and support them financially while they do so. If communities and economies cannot cope with current levels of migration, we must do more to encourage global development, as that is the only way that the migratory millions will be persuaded to seek their future at home.  We can do this, I am an enormous optimist for my species; but it will require the elites, from London to Harvard, from Cambridge to Hollywood, to learn the lessons of the past year. To learn above all a measure of humility. end quote

 

Ok, Professor Hawking. It’s me, Peter. Humility? What the heck? I saw you on the “Big Bang Theory” recently. Can’t you find a voice box that sounds more like George Clooney? What would you do if we had one hundred years to prepare for an asteroid to hit the earth and it will be an extinction level event? Or another possible catastrophe could be that global warming actually occurs in the next twenty years and sea levels rise wiping out all of the earths coastal cities. Or, aliens arrive, but whatever the catastrophe is, what would you do . . . militarize the globe?

Mikee wrote: What is predictable is the effect on human progress and thriving a completely command driven world wide socialist political system would produce.  A ten thousand year dark ages.  Imagine a world president Clinton or Bush number 250.  Or Kim Jong-il #1000... end quote

And that is what hysteria could produce. I think there has been a true evolution in humanity since WWII but we still have such horrible dictators like Castro and the creeps who eulogized him after he croaked. If we do establish colonies off earth they will need renewable matter and energy and the sun is still one big source, so we should start out close to the warmth and light.   

 Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

The eco-hysterics call it global warming.  Other people call it good weather. 

[william.scherk]

On 12/5/2016 at 2:12 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It strikes me as odd that I write long posts saying what it would take,

Well, I may have lost sight of the question and the context, and left off trying harder to understand the other guy's position. For me, that means thinking about 'what it would take.'  The larger thing I am talking about is a position on the spectrum of 'belief' on the issue of AGW.

Instead of there being two blocs, there are some gradations that people insist upon when describing their opinions. For example, Judith Curry is not a full-on 'Lukewarmist,' Bob is a lukewarmist, Ellen is more of a Skeptic.  This is to my mind expressing an underlying index of doubt.  For Curry the greater doubt is that there can be full certainty in the projections of CO₂ warming -- the estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling CO₂, what can be rightly expected. She uses the term "the Uncertainty Monster" for her concerns. She just doesn't have confidence in the basic 'tilt' of projections or scenarios.  She does of course leave room for the future to slay the monster.  The next thirty years will give the data that confirms her expectations or not. There is something in that future data that will let her move her position  along on the doubt index.

I know roughly what it would take for her to become more like a 'true believer,' shall we call it, where the evidence of anthropogenic global warming seems much more certain in mind, compared to hers.  I can foresee her modifying her stance over the next ten years, say.  

Now, here I have the background knowledge that Curry doesn't call into question the basic thesis -- human emissions add to a recent uptilt in global temperatures.  She calls into question certain estimates of future growth.  She thinks they are all biased high. But the physics she doesn't question.

Over on the other side of the swing-set, the hard-core True Believer is 100% convinced that the evidence is in, that we are in the midst of a previous prediction or set of predictions (or scenarios, or forecasts, what have you). For this guy, let's call him Alarm, he is still doing the science and commentary like Judith Curry, but he isn't listening to her.  He isn't listening to the 'uncertainty'  message.  He looks at evidence of warming and concurrent ''expected" effects (ie, sea-level rise, permafrost melt, arctic acceleration etc) and he just sees convergence of evidence.  He is impatient with those who say, "we can't know right now" ...

I'll call him Gavin Schmidt for convenience.  Let's say there is a Judy Team and a Team Gav.  That includes not only the scientists but all the middlemen, from lowly bloggers to the journals, including new and legacy media, social media, think tanks, national societies of scientists, rent-seekers and so on.

There is a massive spread of opinion, even if thought of as Judy vs Gavin 'you people.'

Now back to what I may have misunderstood.  

When I remarked upon the Great Courses reviewer who 'changed his position,' I noted his motivation for the purchase -- he was skeptic, and seeking to confirm his views of the corruption of the basic science of the 'other side.'  In the process of engaging with the course, he changed his position, changed his mind, moved to a different place on the doubt index.

I thought that was neat, and it offered me a question: what would it take to move my index of doubt, what would it take for me to question the sensitivity estimates, what would it take for me to move across the board to Judy Team or beyond.  I thought of the Arctic and what has been happening over the last thirty years.  If the sensitivity was on the Judy end, then at some point, variability in the system will show its own signal despite the CO₂ rise and 'weather' change in our Arctic. I won't list the signals again in detail, but underline that it would be observations that would make my positions 'wrong.'  The underlying Judy Team uncertainty monster would have obliterated the coupling of increased-CO₂/increased warming -- in the very place that theory says warming will advance foremost on Earth.

So, my misunderstanding or miscommunication is in thinking my question to others on OL gets across the 'observations' message.  It will be observation that tells me I am wrong, it is observation that will move my doubt-meter.

My question was yet still ill-posed or equivocal. Michael, for example didn't respond to "Which Observation Data Would Tend To Shift Your Opinion?"  Similarly, Mike E didn't hear "Which Observation Data Would Change Your Mind That Theory Is All Bunk?"

They heard something else, because I asked a poorly-framed question.  

Now I understand why someone might call for a whole team to be retired, the whole Team Gav (if not Judy Team too):  the 'Observations' are tainted across the board; the very data-sets or entailments are not reliable.  Clear out the benches, shut down the farm teams, squeeze out the centres of replication, deny funding to those world-wide bodies and individuals who have carried on 'alarming.'   Gut the entire apparatus that has delivered shonky 'data' if necessary.  Reduce the 'footprint' of those connected to the entire ugly enterprise. Disrupt publicly funded research in climate science.

Now, even that might be wholly incorrect, in that it fails to accurately describe how Michael and Mike or Ellen or Bob  heard the question. I can try again, a bit more open-ended, or I can make an appeal:  what questions would be equally as valid for Team Skeptic and Team Believer?  I mean for us at OL.

"Are there future observations of 'global warming' that might tend to change your mind on climate change theory?"  Too wordy, slinky.  I'll post this and see if I can't figure out a question that more fairly asks others, that doesn't rest on hidden premises, unreliable premises.  A question that works for all positions or levels of doubt.

APS Statement On Earth's Changing Climate ...

Quote

(Adopted by Council on November 14, 2015)

On Climate Change:
Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

On Climate Science:
As summarized in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there continues to be significant progress in climate science. In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more compelling than ever. Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.

On Climate Action:
The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.

 

I can better understand those who reject this statement. At each step of argument, the taint of compromised data.   This can be seen as evidence of so many things wrong in climate science. 

To another point that I made poorly.   This concerns partisan opinion on climate change issues, or 'terms of belief' if you like.  I did not cite the surveys of USA public opinion from PEW that I should have.  Here, for example, is the latest inquiry that shows a divide between Skeptics and the other side: "The Politics of Climate."

On 12/5/2016 at 11:16 AM, william.scherk said:

On 12/4/2016 at 8:09 PM, Brant Gaede said:

It's not the science. It's the politics.

That's what Pielke says, essentially, and I think it is true.  

In the broadest sense -- in the USA more than any other jurisdiction -- 'belief' in one side or stripe or aspect of Climate Change is closely tied to political stripe. [....]

In other words, rather than deciding a position informed by an independent assessment, the position may be predicted by adhesion to political ideology.  Scratch a Republican, reveal a 'denier.' Scratch a Democrat, reveal a 'catastrophist.' 

Well, that was over-snarked.  Better I had said, there is a partisan gap. or partisan presumption that is strikingly evident in the United States, but not elsewhere in the Western World.  I meant to make the case for a healthier political-scientific encounter. In the sense that an individual be less influenced by his 'politics' than by independent assessment.   I wasn't making the point that political stripe determines stance ('belief' gradations), but that its influence is large and might get in the way of  rational approaches.

So, as Brant said, "It's the politics,"  I agreed, and expanded the point, but failed to give an example of how 'politics' can be a lens for science 'understandings.'  I see a situation where a leftish environmentalist takes on faith AGW because of political bias or zombie response to 'green cues,' or simply because the skeptical position is associated with the 'bad' politics of the other. And of the opposite stripe, I see somebody may be very doubtful of any AGW evidence or data, because it seems tainted by the other team's statist politics or anti-human policies.

De-snarked, the kind of opinion-surveys I should have posted above. From the same PEW link as above (for fuller context, see the other graphics at the page):

Edited December 7, 2016 by william.scherk
De-snarked, added clarity

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The larger thing I am talking about is a position on the spectrum of 'belief' on the issue of AGW.

William,

Your question on AGW always comes off to me as: "What would it take for you to believe something by the surfeit of skunks?"

You analyze and speculate about this from different angles, but it always comes back to this.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

On 5/19/2014 at 9:47 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think it's you who don't grasp that with your insistence on limiting the meaning of "ether" to an "ultra stiff elastic gelatinous goo that fills all of space that serves as a medium for electromagnetic waves."

The photoelectric-effect paper was published in 1905, which isn't "later" than the 1920 talk from which I quoted. And you ignore the "wavicle" characteristics of subsequent-to-1905 ideas of light.

Ellen

Einstein later  established how lasers work.  Even though he regarded quantum physics as incomplete, he agreed with quantum physics when it coincided with experiment.  Light has a particulate nature and De Broigle showed that  particles such as electrons  manifest some wave characteristics.  This was later fleshed out by David Bohm.

[william.scherk]

On 12/7/2016 at 11:00 AM, william.scherk said:

Instead of there being two blocs, there are some gradations that people insist upon when describing their opinions. For example, Judith Curry is not a full-on 'Lukewarmist,' Bob is a lukewarmist, Ellen is more of a Skeptic.  This is to my mind expressing an underlying index of doubt.  For Curry the greater doubt is that there can be full certainty in the projections of CO₂ warming -- the estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling CO₂, what can be rightly expected. She uses the term "the Uncertainty Monster" for her concerns. She just doesn't have confidence in the basic 'tilt' of projections or scenarios.  She does of course leave room for the future to slay the monster.  The next thirty years will give the data that confirms her expectations or not. There is something in that future data that will let her move her position  along on the doubt index.

Further to these notes about descriptor terms, "index of doubt," and the 'both sides'  framing, readers aware of Judith Curry's work (APS workshop presentation-discussion, congressional testimony, research and blog postings at JudithCurry.com) know the "Uncertainty Monster" ...  that wicked problem of estimating 'climate sensitivity' to X or Y accumulation of atmospheric CO₂.

For those who entertain opinion from respectful "other side" discussants, you might get a useful read from Victor Venema's "Fans of Judith Curry: the uncertainty monster is not your friend."  First he borrows an analogy by way of metaphor ...

Quote

I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.
Judith Curry

People often see uncertainty as a failing of science. It's the opposite: uncertainty is what drives science forward.
Dallas Campbell

Imagine you are driving on a curvy forest road and it gets more foggy. Do you slow down or do you keep your foot on the pedal? More fog means more uncertainty, means less predictability, means that you see the deer in your headlights later.
 

There is a bit more meat and a bit more gristle.  While not a full-on "eco-hysteric" of lore, he is fairly convinced that odds favour The House. He uses a kind of mathematical reasoning to argue for IPCC-style "confidence intervals." 

For those who avoid the gristle of dispute, some weather slash infrastructure porn -- Vancouver;s new automatic railway versus Winter.  For a brief, shining moment we have the longest automatic railway in the world (take that, Dubai!). and more track than Montreal and Toronto (this thing was around a billion and a half, cheap compared to the last built airport-downtown railway at two point two. Billions are being lined up for the next project -- a tunnel to our biggest university, due 2022).

A wave of this kind of thing is going to sweep America the next four years, mark my words.

More from Venema, quoting Curry:

Quote

Judith Curry thinks that we should take even more uncertainty into account: "I think we can bound [equilibrium climate sensitivity] between 1 and 6°C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further. ... [T]here is a 33% probability that that actual [climate] sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10°C." 

If the climate sensitivity were zero, the damages in 2100 would be zero. Estimating the temperature increase for a climate sensitivity of 10°C is more challenging. If we would still follow the carbon-is-life scenario mitigation skeptics prefer (RCP8.5), we would get a temperature increase of around 13°C in 2100**. It seems more likely that civilization will collapse before, but 13°C would give climate change damages of 132*D, which equals 169*D. The average damages for Curry's limiting case are thus 85*D, a lot more than the 16*D for the case were we are certain. If the uncertainty monster were this big, that would make the risk of climate change a lot higher.

 Weather anomaly porn from the ReAnalyzer.

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

 

I love that electric railway.  I used to be a rail buff.  Subways,  light rail  and electric locomotive were my first love.  

 

[Mikee]

100% of US Warming is Due to NOAA Data Tampering

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

100% of US Warming is Due to NOAA Data Tampering

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year

 

[merjet]

12 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year

The USA comprises less than 2% of the Earth's surface area.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

The USA comprises less than 2% of the Earth's surface area.

The energy from the sun that falls on one percent of the earths surface is more than enough to power the planet.  The problem is a small contiguous patch is in the dark  half the time.  So no small contiguous patch is sufficient for producing solar power to run the country unless energy is somehow stored.

1 hour ago, merjet said:

 

[william.scherk]

 

1 hour ago, merjet said:

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

3 hours ago, Mikee said:

100% of US Warming is Due to NOAA Data Tampering

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year

The USA comprises less than 2% of the Earth's surface area.

The first link is a comment on the story at the second link, from the 'AGW==Hoax' blog Real Climate Science. The blogger Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard says one cannot trust 'warming' data from the USA's National Oceanic and Aeronautical Administration, and so any "US warming" reported is utterly tainted by manipulation.

Heller's claim is arguable at least, from my point of view.  Debatable.

For example, from the Berkeley Earth folks: Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data

[merjet]

Is There a Climate Science Consensus? is a blog post by Charles R. Anderson. He is an OL member but hasn't posted since 2010. He has a PhD in physics and is a self-employed materials scientist. I think his views are worthy of consideration.

[BaalChatzaf]

34 minutes ago, merjet said:

Is There a Climate Science Consensus? is a blog post by Charles R. Anderson. He is an OL member but hasn't posted since 2010. He has a PhD in physics and is a self-employed materials scientist. I think his views are worthy of consideration.

There is no formal consensus in the physical sciences. It may be that a majority of people in a field hold a certain opinion but each arrived at his opinion individually.  In physical science one does not take a vote on a scientific issue and the majority opinion has not binding effect on anyone in the field that dissents.   This notion of consensus has been injected into the issue by politicians  and fanatics. 

Historically, an example.  At one time a majority of physical scientists believed that  light was carried through space by a space filling medium,  luminiferous aether.   The Michelson Morley experiment produced a negative result which made the existence of aether questionable and a patent clerk  in Switzerland made the existence of aether unnecessary. 

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[BaalChatzaf]

17 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The USA comprises less than 2% of the Earth's surface area.

The entire world could be powered by  200,000 square miles of solar panels working at 20% efficiency.   Unfortunately  solar power cannot provide power to run a nation  by itself.  Solar converters do not produce power at night or when the Sun is occluded by heavy clouds.  Some kind of massive energy storage must be developed for solar power (and wind power  which is a form of solar power)  to become primary power sources. 

[william.scherk]

7 hours ago, merjet said:

Is There a Climate Science Consensus? is a blog post by Charles R. Anderson. He is an OL member but hasn't posted since 2010. He has a PhD in physics and is a self-employed materials scientist. I think his views are worthy of consideration.

I'd like to know who he argues with, or rather, who he has last been arguing with, or even better, where he has had an online "conversation" with peers (other physicists and critics).

I got tired of his political declamations in the blog post, and was disappointed there were no references in depth. I read at  a number of science-oriented climate blogs on both 'sides,' and on a few sites on the other side of the issue from Anderson,  'challenges to the orthodoxy' are given a close, physical look -- either when they appear in journals or when they are widely read and cited. I don't know the readership at his blog, and I don't know what online debates he might follow. He doesn't name his opponents, so to speak.

I'll ask him if he has participated in any of that kind of discussion (ie, that like at And Then There's Physics). There are a handful of folks who give thorough critical attention in a fairly civil and constructive manner.  If he isn't prickly, he will find some critical comment welcome. 

After your read and initial consideration, Merlin, what are your thoughts?

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There is no formal consensus in the physical sciences. It may be that a majority of people in a field hold a certain opinion but each arrived at his opinion individually.  In physical science one does not take a vote on a scientific issue and the majority opinion has not binding effect on anyone in the field that dissents.   This notion of consensus has been injected into the issue by politicians  and fanatics. 

What does consensus mean?  (I don't generally appeal to consensus, but to authorities whom I have come to trust in fields beyond my ken)

I always associated consensus with decision-making. Is there a consensus in the room. Not a majority/minority, but a general agreement to action x or policy f. If there is consensus, it is usually the result of a deadline and a long preceding period of discussion. So, I think the science communicators or propagandists used consensus beyond its metaphor as broad agreement -- as a tool of persuasion.  It wasn't effective especially since they tried to quantize it. It for me smacked a bit of humanistic overreach.  A teaching moment, or a ploy to convince via analogy. 

But, strip the word of its propaganda value in what we might call "Climate Wars" ... it isn't in itself a dirty word or concept.

At the very least it means agreement, and at a stretch proportion of agreement.  A consensus of scholars, a consensus of supreme court justices, a consensus of the Constitutional Assembly. Canada's double failure to amend our constitution during the Mulroney years showed the lack of consensus.

So, yeah a political term or analogy to a kind of will, willful decision-making. Not in itself a bad thing to use now and again. Do we have a consensus?  Jury Foreman: I cain't say we do ...

Stretching ... It can also mean the overlap between what say climate scientist Judith Curry says is the current state of knowledge in sub-issue X and what corresponding climate scientist Isaac Held says it is -- and similarly on the broad strokes of climatology. Overlapping check marks for the work of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, subsequent validations and corrections, and so on. Check marks against a suite of scientific work that followed, subsequent validations and corrections. Overwhelming overlapping check marks for a bulk of the work up until article X,  at some point divergence ...

And I think that if we are able to section out the spectrum of agreement, the gradations from 'Warmer' to 'Lukewarmer' to 'Skeptic,' then we can see -- if only in abstract -- that there is a body of knowledge built on physics, agreed-upon climate physics, that those closer to the Warmer/Lukewarmer position can both consider more or less solid.  This is where the 'sides' meet. 

The devil is in the details of the disagreements at that edge, then. I mean, for me, that is the interesting edge, where the most central remaining issues are respectfully disputed by folks who know each other's shit backwards and forwards. That is why I found the transcription of the APS meeting of minds on that edge so interesting.  They worked each other hard, to understand the other, to explain to the other. They may diverge today (eg The Uncertainty Monster) but they are still in the game with each other, at least in the field. 

Bob, can you give Anderson some consideration? -- he has seemingly disproved the whole idea that CO2 can possibly do what lukewarmers say it does. Your reward is more automated railway action. The headways are tight at the central stations: every 75 seconds a train whooshes in. 

Here's two sections from the Anderson article.

Quote

One of the most interesting observations is that retirement brings on a major change of viewpoint for many scientists.  Those who supported the alarmist claims before retirement often oppose it afterwards. Those who were silent on the subject often come out against the alarmist thesis after retirement.  This applies to many scientists who are not climate scientists, but are experts in radiation such as infra-red, visible light, and ultra-violet light radiation.  Just like climate scientists, it is harmful to their careers if they speak out against the so-called consensus the governments have tried so hard to create.  NASA, Navy, Air Force, Army, EPA, NOAA, Department of Energy with its 17 energy research laboratories, Department of the Interior, Agriculture Department, and university researchers in the sciences in the USA are all given good reason to be fearful about their careers if they speak up against the alarmist crusade.  The government has worked ruthlessly hard to try to produce a "scientific consensus", but has massively violated both the scientific method in the process.  The scientific method depends critically on independent thinking and on freedom of speech and press.  This is one of the great dangers of putting the government in charge of basic research funding.

Most of the scientists said to be supporters of the catastrophic man-made global warming thesis can not provide a decent explanation of the physics which is supposed to cause the emission of the so-called greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to cause a catastrophic level of warming.  They should most definitely not be counted as scientists who are the basis for a scientific consensus, despite that fact that some of them may have an unscientific belief in that alarmist thesis. What would a true scientific consensus be?  It would consist of those scientists who had a coherent, carefully laid out and reasonably complete single theory of how man's emissions of infra-red active molecules such as carbon dioxide and methane caused such a large warming of the globe that a catastrophe for mankind must certainly occur.  Those holding the scientific viewpoint could all articulate this theory and explain how it agreed with observations of reality and how it could make predictions of the climate's characteristics of the future.  They would agree on all of these things.  This is what a scientific consensus would be.

[...]

The IPCC hypothesis that water vapor and carbon dioxide and a smattering of other greenhouse gases contribute a warming effect causing a surface warming of about 33K is absolutely a huge exaggeration.  Gravity causes the surface to be at about 284K or a bit higher and solar radiation only has to supply another total temperature increase of about 4K.  It is not clear that there is any warming caused by greenhouse gases at all.  At most, it is a small fraction of 4K! Given that most of whatever small fraction that is is caused by water vapor, any effect by carbon dioxide is minuscule.  What is more, the carbon dioxide absorption effects are already largely saturated.  It is clear that there is simply no need for a large back-radiation warming of the surface to explain the 288K surface temperature. Indeed, if there were a large back-radiation of 324 W/m2  , the surface temperature would be much, much hotter than it is.

It is hardly a wonder that the size of any warming effect by CO2 has not been measured.  In fact, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, causes a very small increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere and that causes the temperature gradient due to gravity to decrease very slightly, causing a cooling of the surface.  There is also a very small transport of energy to higher altitudes aided by rapid infra-red transport of energy from one layer of the atmosphere to the next which will increase very slightly.  Carbon dioxide also has a small effect in absorbing solar insolation in the upper atmosphere, thereby cooling the surface as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere.  The net very small effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should therefore be an infinitesimal decrease in the surface temperature. What is certain is that carbon dioxide is not threatening a catastrophe and will never likely even have a measurable effect on temperatures.

It is my hope that this relatively short and simple description of aspects of the physics of the atmosphere will give the reader much to think about and open new avenues for the evaluation of the usual arguments made for catastrophic man-made warming.  Few of the scientists who might claim that this science is well-understood and agreed upon by most scientists actually understand the science.  There are many who cannot at all reasonably describe the science of the theory they claim is universally understood and agreed upon.  There are many vague and poorly examined versions of the above hypotheses for the cause of man-made warming.  To my knowledge, there is no theory that stands up to a critical examination of the physics and there is certainly none that is proven by evidence.