The Tories' War On Data

[ToadBrother]

What exactly do you think the words "It really depends on the field " mean? I think most people would understand that it means that some fields don't have the same problems.

In another post I was extremely explicit: "The main exceptions are fields where it is possible to conduct controlled experiments that can potentially disprove a hypothesis."

You are mixing up cause and effect. I had no reason to doubt the science until I looked into it. Once I looked at I realized the field is a cesspool of dubious statistical analyses driven by the need to publish and show obeisance to the AGW cause. I have also read of similar problems with other fields like medical research. Which is why the first thing I look for are hypothesis that can falsified in the real world. Without that connection to the real world it is simply too easy for opinion to get treated as fact.

Lastly, my opinion of the science is independent of my opinion on policy issues. Climate science, as a field, could clean up its act but I still would feel that adaptation as required is the preferable policy choice with mitigation when and only when CO2 free alternatives are comparable in cost to the CO2 emitting versions. This was my opinion in the 1990s when I accepted the IPCC reports and gospel and it is my opinion today.

Are climatologists accurate in their views on the physical properties of greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane? Yes or no.

[Argus]

I'm not a Liberal lackey, so your accusation is completely off the mark.

I did not say you were but very well, if and when Mulcair does the same thing you will shrug and not care. Because he's not the evil sith lord Darth Harper and you feel confident that whatever he does he's doing for a good reason.

[ToadBrother]

I did not say you were but very well, if and when Mulcair does the same thing you will shrug and not care. Because he's not the evil sith lord Darth Harper and you feel confident that whatever he does he's doing for a good reason.

No, I won't.

Quit inventing positions for me, Argus. I'm pro-science and pro-research, and any party who partakes in reducing our already dismal level of research investment should be condemned.

[TimG]

Are climatologists accurate in their views on the physical properties of greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane? Yes or no.

Definitely yes. Because those properties can be tested in the lab. That said, getting the physical properties correct does not mean climate models provide a meaningful picture of the consequences of any given increase in CO2 concentration. To have the same level of confidence the climate models would have consistently predict future events but that is impossible to test because we only have one earth and it takes decades for a single prediction to be validated. Edited September 21, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Definitely yes. Because those properties can be tested in the lab. That said, getting the physical properties correct does not mean climate models provide a meaningful picture of the consequences of any given increase in CO2 concentration. To have the same level of confidence the climate models would have consistently predict future events but that is near impossible to do because we only have one earth and it takes decades for a single prediction to be validated.

Let's just start with their physical properties.

So what would you posit would be the effect of large increases of CO2 in the lower atmosphere, keeping in mind both its radiation absorption properties, and its chemical properties in reacting with sea water?

[Argus]

No, I won't.

Quit inventing positions for me, Argus. I'm pro-science and pro-research, and any party who partakes in reducing our already dismal level of research investment should be condemned.

Any party which needs to make cutbacks is going to focus on unnecessary research rather than health care and you must surely know that.

[TimG]

So what would you posit would be the effect of large increases of CO2 in the lower atmosphere, keeping in mind both its radiation absorption properties, and its chemical properties in reacting with sea water?

The temperature would go up. What is your point? Are you trying set things up to make a leap that because temperatures will rise that the rise must be necessarily bad? I am not going to follow you there because it does not automatically follow that it is a net harm. To draw that conclusion you need a trustworthy climate model and we don't have any. Edited September 21, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

The temperature would go up. What is your point? Are you trying set things up to make a leap that because temperatures will rise that the rise must be necessarily bad? I am not going to follow you there because it does not automatically follow that it is a net harm. To draw that conclusion you need a trustworthy climate model and we don't have any.

This isn't a value judgment. You've answered that heat would go up.

Now, what is heat?

[TimG]

This isn't a value judgment. You've answered that heat would go up. Now, what is heat?

A form of energy.

[ToadBrother]

A form of energy.

And what drives global climate patterns?

[TimG]

And what drives global climate patterns?

Yes, the climate will change. So?

[marcus]

You know, I bet when Jean Chretien cut federal spending to the bone, among the first to go were non-essential

You "bet"? Show how your amazing intuition is true.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, the climate will change. So?

You keep wanting to run to the end of the sentence. I'm trying to nail you down on the specifics.

Energy drives climate. Increasing the energy in the climate does more than simply change it, it makes it more chaotic. It creates stronger storm systems, it changes rain belts and general precipitation patterns.

And that's not even talking about the other significant effect of warming and increased CO2 concentrations. What happens to the oceans as lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase?

[Argus]

You "bet"? Show how your amazing intuition is true.

Why should I? My bet is based upon reason and logic. Chretien cut lots more than Harper, even cutting transfer payments for health, education and welfare. You think he was going to cut health care and leave penguin studies purring along? Please.

[cybercoma]

I love how Argus makes assumptions about what people thought about a government that hasn't been in power for over 12 years. Reason and logic indeed. "I haven't heard you criticize a government from 15 years ago, therefore you mustn't have any criticisms of it."

[TimG]

Energy drives climate. Increasing the energy in the climate does more than simply change it, it makes it more chaotic. It creates stronger storm systems, it changes rain belts and general precipitation patterns.

It also reduces the temperature differential between the poles and the equator which reduces the likelihood of a major storm. The IPCC itself says that the number of people living without enough water will be less because of the increased precipitation.

The point you are missing is: change is change and is not necessarily a net negative. If you want to establish that it is a net negative then you need more than the evidence available provides.

And that's not even talking about the other significant effect of warming and increased CO2 concentrations. What happens to the oceans as lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase?

The pH levels drop by an amount less than existing seasonal and/or geographical variations. Edited September 21, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Why should I? My bet is based upon reason and logic. Chretien cut lots more than Harper, even cutting transfer payments for health, education and welfare. You think he was going to cut health care and leave penguin studies purring along? Please.

My bet is that science funding likely declined. But this isn't just about funding of research, this is about what looks like a wholesale attack on retaining even existing data, attacks on the academic freedom of government-funded and directly employed researchers.

[ToadBrother]

It also reduces the temperature differential between the poles and the equator which reduces the likelihood of a major storm. The IPCC itself says that the number of people living without enough water will be less because of the increased precipitation.

That's not quite what the IPCC says. It says that some areas will receive far more precipitation, but that other areas will receive fair less.

The point you are missing is: change is change and is not necessarily bad. If you want to establish that it is bad then the you need more than the evidence available provides.

The point you're missing is that you just assume there's no such thing as bad change.

The pH levels drop by an amount less than existing seasonal and/or geographical variations.

And again we see misrepresentation of what that means:

From NOAA:

"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years."

[TimG]

That's not quite what the IPCC says. It says that some areas will receive far more precipitation, but that other areas will receive fair less.

From the IPCC report:

However, using the per capita water availability indicator, climate change would appear to reduce global water stress. This is because increases in runoff are heavily concentrated in the most populous parts of the world, mainly in East and South-East Asia, and mainly occur during high flow seasons (Arnell, 2004b). Therefore, they may not alleviate dry season problems if the extra water is not stored and would not ease water stress in other regions of the world.

Of course using dams to store water is a tried and true solution so it is unreasonable to assume that people will not store the water to smooth out availability. The IPCC report talks about many factors affecting water stress including urbanization and growing populations. These problems will exist no matter what but if the global availability of water is increasing due to climate change then the capacity for helping water stressed regions by moving water from high availability regions is higher. IOW, when it comes to water availability climate change may be a net positive.

The point you're missing is that you just assume there's no such thing as bad change.

Change is always good and bad. I changed my post to use the word 'net negative' to capture this. What we care about is not whether there will be some negative effects but whether the negative effects will outweigh the positive effects.

And again we see misrepresentation of what that means:

We have a teachable moment because NOAA is guilty of its own misrepresentation.

"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units.

An assumption. We don't have reliable measurements from 200 years ago so we don't know the exact change. .

Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.

Complete spin from the use of the word 'acidity' when what is happening is the oceans are being neutralized (being brought closer to pure water) to the nonsense about logarithm scale. But two can play at that game: the natural pH varies by as much as 0.6 pH which is a 400% change in acidity! OMG! a 30% change is obviously the end of the world [/sarc]

Again, what you are doing is trying to infer bad effects without any actual evidence. And even if you can show that some bad effects exist you still need to make the case that the bad effects necessarily outweigh the good. This is impossible to do given the tools we have. This use of inference to make claims without evidence is why climate science, as field, is so problematic.

Edited September 21, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

From the IPCC report:

Of course using dams to store water is a tried and true solution so it is unreasonable to assume that people will not store the water to smooth out availability. The IPCC report talks about many factors affecting water stress including urbanization and growing populations. These problems will exist no matter what but if the global availability of water is increasing due to climate change then the capacity for helping water stressed regions by moving water from high availability regions is higher. IOW, when it comes to water availability climate change may be a net positive.

Change is always good and bad. I changed my post to use the word 'net negative' to capture this. What we care about is not whether there will be some negative effects but whether the negative effects will outweigh the positive effects.

We have a teachable moment:

An assumption. We don't have reliable measurements from 200 years ago so we don't know the exact change. .

Complete spin from the use of the word 'acidity' when what is happening is the oceans are being neutralized (being brought closer to pure water) to the nonsense about logarithm scale. But two can play at that game: the natural pH varies by as much as 0.6 pH which 400% change in acidity! OMG!

Again, what you are doing is trying to infer bad effects without any actually evidence. And even if you can show that some bad effects exist you still need to make the case that the bad effects necessarily outweigh the good. This is impossible to do given the tools we have.

I'm not inferring anything. I'm stating what the scientists are saying. You're just trying to twist definitions to win the debate. The ocean is become more acidic regardless of seasonal background levels, which has as still largely unknown effects on many oceanic ecosystems. You just keep trying to argue what pretty much every oceanic expert is saying, and why? Why is it that you don't want to admit CO2 emission increases are bad?

At the end of the day, you're no different than a Creationist who tries to attack a theory not because it's wrong, but because it isn't 100% accurate. Theories dont' have to be perfect to have utility, and we have plenty of tools at are disposal.

Grow up. The universe does not owe any particular political or economic ideology an favors. Not even a little bit. CO2 emissions in the quantities that we have been producing since the Industrial REvolution are bad. and the sooner we wean ourselves of the use of fossil fuels, the better. Because in the long term, the effect of shifting rain belts and other climate changes due to those emissions will outweigh the rather modest costs of moving to alternative energy production schemes.

[TimG]

I'm not inferring anything. I'm stating what the scientists are saying.

This debate started because I stated that I feel that climate science is a field filled with scientists publishing opinions and treating them like facts. Claiming you are repeating what scientists say does not help your argument.

Why is it that you don't want to admit CO2 emission increases are bad?

Because there no evidence supporting that assertion. How about I flip it around: why do you want to believe that CO2 emissions are bad? Seems to me that my position that CO2 emissions will have a combination of good and bad effects is more rational than yours.

Theories dont' have to be perfect to have utility, and we have plenty of tools at are disposal.

But useful theories must be able to consistently predict future outcomes. Evolution meets that benchmark. Climate science does not.

Because in the long term, the effect of shifting rain belts and other climate changes due to those emissions will outweigh the rather modest costs of moving to alternative energy production schemes.

A statement that is pure unsubstantiated religious dogma. You can believe it if you like but you can't call it science. Edited September 21, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

This debate started because I stated that I feel that climate science is a field filled with scientists publishing opinions and treating them like facts. Claiming you are repeating what scientists say does not help your argument.

Because there no evidence supporting that assertion. How about I flip it around: why do you want to believe that CO2 emissions are bad? Seems to me that my position that CO2 emissions will have a combination of good and bad effects is more rational than yours.

But useful theories must be able to consistently predict future outcomes. Evolution meets that benchmark. Climate science does not.

A statement that is pure unsubstantiated religious dogma. You can believe it if you like but you can't call it science.

And the climate models do consistently show overall effects from increased emissions.

I'm just listening to the scientists. You're just trying to twist what they say so you don't have to accept reality. In the end, like pseudo-skeptics for a century, you claim that anyone who accepts science you don't like is being religious. You're objections are spurious, tiresome, and ultimately only about protecting your own world view.

[Canada_First]

The left wants statistics on everything except crime statistics based in race. Strange double standard

[TimG]

And the climate models do consistently show overall effects from increased emissions.

And they also failed to correctly predict the rate of warming over the last 15 years. This undermines any other conclusions drawn from their outputs. It makes no difference if scientists try to explain away the failures - a failed prediction is still a failed prediction.

I'm just listening to the scientists. You're just trying to twist what they say so you don't have to accept reality.

I am listening to what the scientists say AND I look at the facts they are using to justify their claims. A scientific claim is only as good as the underlying facts and the problem with climate science is there are few independently verifiable facts. If there are independently verifiable facts I have no issue with the science (such as the basic science of GHGs).

You're objections are spurious, tiresome, and ultimately only about protecting your own world view.

My objections are founded in deep understanding of what science is and what it is not. The only reason you ignore the facts and jump to conclusions that are not actually supported by the available data is because the conclusions happen to fit your personal world view. If another group of scientists were making conclusions that did not suit your world view you would be a diligent as I am when it comes to separating the well supported and understood science from the unsupported speculations. Edited September 21, 2015 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

The left wants statistics on everything except crime statistics based in race. Strange double standard

Strange...they love race based data and statistics on many other things.

No matter...when Canadians can't find domestic data or don't want to bother trying to find it, they just default to what is readily available from the United States. "It's just easier".