95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#41

Post by TelmoMenezes » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:23 AM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #14

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doensn't matter. Of course it matters -- in terms of the amount of impact human activity has on the climate. The less impact it has, the less beneficial you can expect energy policies to be to the environment. Since these policies have a non-trivial cost in terms of human suffering (less energy for heating, growing food, et…

It doesn't matter in a moral sense. If someone proves that CO2 emissions don't cause global warming, then yeah, it makes it less effective to focus on CO2 emissions. But we still want to stop warming from happening, so we'd increase our efforts on whatever they pinpoint as the alternative cause. The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being oblig…

> The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being obligated to avert warming at all

I re-read the article and I don't understand how you arrive at this interpretation. This appears to be something you're assuming. The article is precisely about the utilitarian argument: the trade-off between the expected effectiveness of energy policies and their cost.

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#42

Post by smoyer » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:23 AM UTC

jlrbuellv wrote: post #17

jbooth wrote: post #4

I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a met…

I think you're missing the point. Climate change policy is an optimization problem: how much money do we spend (either active on counter-measures or passively by capping energy usage) to reduce temperature change by some amount. If we can only affect it half as much as we thought we could, would we still spend the same amount? Maybe, but it's not exactly a no-brainer.

" If we can only affect it half as much"

You've made a great point - if we've really reached a tipping point at some of the more extreme global warming alarmists, you wouldn't spend any money at all. So they've inadvertently caused logical people to decide we shouldn't do anything.

The other end of the spectrum would try to convince you that global warming isn't real (global warming and cooling has happened for eons - without man's help) and that it's therefore not worth doing anything.

As an ecologist, I drive my wife and kids nuts with my need to recycle ... and take it a step beyond. I've repaired all sorts of "throw-away" household gadgets (most recently my wife's straightening iron) and try to give away working items we no longer need (freecycle). So I still believe we should each do what we can to minimize our impact on the planet, whether or not global warming is real.

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#43

Post by gruseom » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:25 AM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #11

More on the author of this post: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views Another interpretation of this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat... (also see ovis's link in a reply below) Regarding very similar claims: https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipc…

Considering how strongly your sources disagree with the OP, I find it surprising that the opposing graphs are not all that far off from each other.

The graph from the last article you linked to: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png

The graph from the OP: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mode...

In both cases the actuals are at the low end of the predicted range. They disagree as to how low, obviously, but not as much as I expected.

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#44

Post by Zancarius » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:29 AM UTC

grantlmiller wrote: post #23

I'm a natural skeptic, so when everyone believes something I think that is the most important time to question it. I found Economist Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change to be very impactful... http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie... The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by…

> The basic idea is: that given our limited resources how can we do the most good? The answer is that focusing that effort on climate change is frivolous even by the most optimistic predictions.

This is actually a fantastic point. Given the real, quantifiable health effects pollution has on humans (and other species), it seems more beneficial as a whole to deal with more immediate issues. Rather than quibbling over something that might, maybe, possibly reduce global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree. Maybe.

Great video, by the way. Thank you for sharing! Bjorn's basic premise could apply to so many things beyond simply world problems, which is what makes his talk fantastic.

Judging by the emotional investment some people have had in this thread, it'd be shameful if your post is missed. But, reasonable, balanced, rational measures seldom get people quite as excited as those that evoke emotion.

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#45

Post by gruseom » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:39 AM UTC

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #12

jbooth wrote: post #4

I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a met…

Thank you. What we are seeing here is nothing more than a rationalization and opportunistic bolstering of his preexisting belief system. In the end global warming might be better than we're expecting but it is the political and social inferences, like in the quote you included, that belie his true intent.

nothing more than a rationalization and opportunistic bolstering of his preexisting belief system

Whose behavior does that not describe?

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#46

Post by nerfhammer » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:43 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #43

nerfhammer wrote: post #11

More on the author of this post: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views Another interpretation of this post: http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1xuccb/95_of_climat... (also see ovis's link in a reply below) Regarding very similar claims: https://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-... http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipc…

Considering how strongly your sources disagree with the OP, I find it surprising that the opposing graphs are not all that far off from each other. The graph from the last article you linked to: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png The graph from the OP: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mode... In both cases the actuals are at the low end of the predicted range. They disagree as to h…

see http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... (courtesy ovis below)

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#47

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:47 AM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #4

I don't know enough about meteorology to comment on the article, but this quote bugged me: "And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats." No, there's the exact same amount of reason. This isn't a morality play, who's "fault" it is doesn't matter. If there were a met…

prosperity-destroying energy policies

Ever notice how climate change skeptics implicitly claim perfect economic foresight? They may not buy that the Earth is warming or what the cause is, but they're absolutely certain that trying to weatherproof our civilization is going to result in collective bankruptcy. Oh yes.

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#48

Post by huxley » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:48 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #32

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #9

This is where the guy loses me: "then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats" and "increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good" As if he gives a crap about poor people. People freeze not because of energy policies but because we have poor social welfare and exploitive foreign policy that itself is motivate…

You lost me. Where does the author make the claims that you appear to be disputing?

Here are the two paragraphs in question:

"And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.

I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or '97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming', neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good."

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#49

Post by markmassie » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:52 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #33

I don't know why the uncertainties of climate modelling is valid reason for inaction. When one of the possible outcomes of dumping trillions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere is global disaster, then the poorer our models the more we should be worried.

Exactly. There are two major questions: either the models are right or they are wrong, and either we successfully curb emissions on a very large scale (action) or we do not (inaction). This gives us four outcomes:

1. Models are Right + Action = huge spending on energy but we save the planet

2. Models are wrong + Action = huge spending on energy that otherwise would be spent on defense, etc. but we are left with a renewable energy infrastructure.

3. Models are wrong + inaction = little money spent on new power sources, left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in 100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it.

4. Models are right + inaction = little money spent on new power sources, left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in 100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it. Also, dramatic weather changes, widespread famine, etc.

Does inaction make sense even if the models are wrong?

Re: 95% of climate models agree: the observations must be wrong

#50

Post by vehementi » Sat, Feb 15, 2014, 2:54 AM UTC

001sky wrote: post #26

jbooth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter in a moral sense. If someone proves that CO2 emissions don't cause global warming, then yeah, it makes it less effective to focus on CO2 emissions. But we still want to stop warming from happening, so we'd increase our efforts on whatever they pinpoint as the alternative cause. The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being oblig…

It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere in the world. Of course none of this matters if you are having "first-world" pyschological problems about guilt...or you are trying to secure some money or presige for your first-world cushy lifestyle.

Scarce resources aren't the cause of starving babies