Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

The study you cite is neither predictive nor evidence based. It is a speculative, after the fact explanation: "We used computer-generated simulations to get this research result. I hope that in the future we'll be able to verify this result with real data through a long-term ice thickness measurement campaign." ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630064726.ht... )

That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. But it is not evidence, nor is it conclusive. There is simply no reason to believe Powell's explanation over the explanation I cited in my previous comment. The NASA explanation is based on actual observation rather than computer simulations.

The climate is so complex that you can always come up with an after the fact explanation. The only way to judge science is either a) by the predictions it makes or b) following the chain of deductive reasoning. Predictions are not really possible with climate science in the short term because there are too many variables. So that leaves b). I have not studied the science behind sea ice changes closely. But many of the global climate models have been subjected to egregious tuning: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2475

Given what we know about CO2, hard to see how it could be otherwise, but not worth arguing over.

The effect of CO2 on temperature is both a) logarithmic and b) non-cumulative. For models to predict a levels of warming that are actually alarming, the models must include feedback loops. No one knows if these feedback effects are real. They are entirely speculative.

"Temperature of what???"

I just assume climate researchers use a reasonable definition. Maybe "moving average of 100 years" or whatever (I don't know).

"However, there are an infinite number of points"

Not sure what you are saying? Seems to me a finite sample should be sufficient to get a statistical significant result. Are you saying "OK, the measurement at point x was 30°C, but how can you be sure that 1m north of it the temperature was not -10°C"? I think that would be a bit silly. Again, the average should be your friend. Maybe at some measuring spots you miss the temperature by 10°C. So what? On average, those errors should cancel out.

"Still, there are an enormous number of points at which you need to measure temperature."

As I said, I am not interested in the way to get there, just in the final information upon which to act or not. And that is one bit.

(Edit: although I also dispute your claim that there is an enormous number of points. To make up an extreme counter example, suppose you measure temperature in your home, and you notice it rising 10°C every year - would you really need other measurements to conclude that something is wrong? Like when it was at 100°C, boiling temperature for water, would you still say "but OK, it is still reasonably chilly at 80km altitude, so nothing to worry about"?).

"Last but not least: the atmosphere is some 80 Km thick. You need measurement at high-altitudes, too."

Again, I assume that climate researchers pick meaningful spots to measure. Maybe they measure at 80km altitude, maybe not. Maybe it is relevant to measure at 80km, maybe not. I don't see a point to argue about that kind of thing on a "popular science" level - that is up to the specialists. I suppose temperatures at 80km could be measured, why not? Maybe it can be done with telescopes or satellites - why do you assume it is not being done?

It just seems like a cop out to say "yeah, but it is so complicated we can never be sure". We are not 100% sure how the human body works, but we can still fix parts of it and detect some things when they are wrong.

"I haven't. So they tell us the temperature is rising, but we don't know what temperature. What a joke..."

Just because you haven't read it, doesn't mean they don't tell us. I may well have read it at some time, but I don't read such things frequently, so I forgot. I don't actually think you can write a scientific paper without giving a definition of the temperature you are talking about.

"We only need to sample every few hundreds of meters or so."

Why? What makes you think so? And what about your house that should be burning up by now? Is it not burning because the house 100m apart is not burning?

Also, maybe with satellites you can measure a lot of spots in one go - maybe even at 100m distance if that is the only thing that would make you happy.

Have you checked that they don't measure 100m apart? Because I get the impression that you just assume they only do bad science, without having checked that assumption.

"you will not be able to predict the (near) future state reliably."

Again, why not? Doesn't it entirely depend on the system and the circumstances? Like if you boil some water on the oven, and you want to know how fast it heats up, I am pretty sure measuring at one point is sufficient to predict the temperature rise for the whole pot of water (because you know it is a pot of water that is being heated from below with constant energy supply). Obviously climate is more complicated than a pot of water, but you still would have to supply better arguments for why you think current methods are insufficient.

What if you care about the ice in the arctic melting away - do you think it is impossible to measure that? (I don't know if it is possible, but for example it seems plausible that the area covered with ice is measurable from space to a high precision).

"If you don't understand the process used to obtain the numbers, you don't understand how much the numbers can be trusted."

Again, give examples of cases were you think the scientists did not do what was due. Naturally I can not verify their results directly (at least not without a significant investment of time). However, I can have a certain degree of confidence in the system that made them scientists, peer reviews and so on. (Edit: for example if they turn out to be merely popular fiction authors or philosophers, I am less inclined to believe them than if they are actually climate researchers)

Again, what makes you think they are all wrong - can you point out specific examples in major papers that are cited a lot in the debate?

Krugman can't be taken seriously. To call opponents "deniers" is to immediately concede a rational discussion.

I heard the hysterical arguments in college back in the early seventies about global cooling. This group is no more legimate, but much savvier politically.

Don't forget chaos theory and rounding errors. Chaos theory was initially discovered when by running a weather simulation with the same inputs and recieving different outputs due to floating point rounding errors.