Science denial

Discussion in 'Science' started by (original)late, Aug 23, 2020.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
    OK, let's not mix the policy responses with the science.

    I might agree with you on policy mistakes. In fact, the largest policy mistake has been to assault climatology as a matter of POLICY!!
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/what-paleoclimatology
    The issue with CO2 is NOT that CO2 holds heat.

    It's that it is a factor in our atmosphere blocking heat from leaving Earth. Our atmosphere is becoming a more effective blanket.

    I'm not sure what you are referring to - maybe you should cite it.
    Actually, CO2 isn't even CLOSE to being the most potent greenhouse gas. The reason for the focus on that gas is that we're emitting so much of it that its total volume is a big deal.

    So, one of the biggest issues we have is the melting of tundra and the emissions of the decay that results - forming a strong feedback loop as we allow temps to rise.
    LOL!

    Well, what we do with refineries is a policy issue. I suspect the more important approach is to find energy solutions that dont involve fossil fuel - that answers the refinery question.

    Today, new energy is coming from the clean energy segments rather than fossil fuel - a good sign that flies in the face of the organized opposition presented by our administration. It's happening that way because it is a better economic choice.

    Unfortunately, we allowed China to get WAY ahead of us on clean energy. They lead in patents, innovatin, technology, manufacturing, exports, installations, and whateve other measure one might want to consider.

    We are way behind, hardly challenging for 3d place in this segment of world economy - which I see as hugely unfortunate give the STUPENDOUS world wide need for energy, especially clean energy as economies are emerging on all continents.

    Talk about a basic policy blunder!
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another outstanding post

    Thanks for the source.
     
  3. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ffs, which part of IPCC coordination of this "science" is it you are missing?

    Again, what other "science" is being "determined" by a bunch of policy wonks?
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I fully realize that the IPCC has infomation related to the effectiveness of various policy ideas.

    And, the Paris process included the VOLUNTARY commitments made by various countries concerning what they would do to contribute.

    But, those elements related to what we can or are willing to do about the problem are policy statements, NOT science - even if science has analyzed the policy, providing that information to those making policy.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  5. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You’re as bad as a Trumpster with your pretzel logic defense of the IPCC.

    This is a policy organization that is analyzing the science. Literally, the IPCC determines the state of the science.
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is an intergovernmental pannel on assessing the science related to climate change.
     
  7. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ugh, seriously?

    you actually thought this was a worthy response?

     
  8. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Insolation is a constant for these studies and isn't what is being measured. It is the reflected short-wave (SW) radiation that is being measured. Changes in the reflected solar
    radiation determine the change in albedo. Albedo is the fraction of short- wave radiation (sunlight) that is reflected away from the earth. The average albedo of the earth is
    close to 0.30. The albedo is 0.0 for a black surface and 1.0 for a white surface.

    SW is short-wave refers to incident sunlight
    LW is long wave refers to the Earth's emission spectrum
    SW TOA flux anomaly just means the change in reflected sunlight at the top of the atmosphere average over a 24 hour day. I don't know what is used for a baseline in these studies. I assume
    it would represent some long term average of reflected sunlight prior to the study.

    MODIS cloud fraction - I had to look this up. Here is a description for determining the cloud fraction for Washington state. I think it measures visible and infrared light.

    Using data from the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) instruments found on the Terra and Aqua satellites, a monthly cloud fraction map of Washington can be generated using the parameters below.

    The 1-degree spatial resolution data used to produce the plots is averaged over the selected period and is produced using the primary cloud fraction parameter from cloud mask in the MODIS Level-3 monthly global dataset (Terra, MOD08_M3 and Aqua, MYD08_M3). Each satellite makes 2 passes over the state a day at about 11-12pm and 9-10pm for Terra and 2-3am and 1-2pm for Aqua (PST)

    This graph is taken from the same article at Skeptical Science https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect-intermediate.htm . I think that the CERES data is more accurate than the MODIS cloud data
    for determining the change in albedo.

    "In contrast, satellite data such as CERES is a global measure of the Earth’s reflected shortwave radiation, including the effects of all atmospheric and surface properties. It covers a broader spectrum than earthshine (0.3–5.0 µm). An analysis of the CERES data finds no long term trend in albedo from March 2000 to June 2005. A comparison with 3 independent sets of satellite data (MODIS, MISR and SeaWiFS) also finds "remarkable consistency" between the 4 satellite results (Loeb 2007a). "



    [​IMG]

    Figure 4: Monthly anomalies in global mean CERES SW TOA flux and MODIS cloud fraction (Loeb 2007b).
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
    Cosmo and Grey Matter like this.
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,554
    Likes Received:
    21,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How to keep politics from undermining science?

    I wish I knew, but I do know the answer is not to just believe everything 'scientists' say...
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  10. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The radiative forcing for a doubling of carbon dioxide is 3.7 watts/meter +/- 10%. That results in an average warming of the planet's surface by about 1.1 degrees Celsius if we don't
    include climate feedbacks. There is quite a bit of uncertainty in the climate feedbacks but they are known to be positive and amplify this CO2 positive forcing.
    0.75 degrees Celsius per 1 watt/meter of climate forcing is the most reasonable climate sensitivity that incorporates all climate feedbacks. Multiplying this, 0.75, times 3.7 watts/meter = 2.8 degrees C
    average temperature change at the surface of the earth after the atmosphere and oceans come to equilibrium. It is the fast-feedback climate sensitivity. A big part of that is the water vapor feedback
    and also the decrease in albedo due to melting sea ice and melting glaciers. The last glacial period transition to the Holocene or other paleoclimate transitions are often used to estimate climate sensitivity.
    We don't need complex climate models to know that the earth should be getting warmer as a result of our modification of the atmosphere.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  11. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    How can the IPCC determine the state of the science, whatever that means? The science exists independent of the IPCC. Is there any reason to believe that the state of the science
    would be any different if the IPCC or the U.N. didn't exist? No. The same research would be done with the same results if the IPCC didn't exist. All of that research is peer reviewed
    and examined by many scientists before the IPCC ever looks at it.

    What is wrong with the most recent IPCC report?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  12. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks Mike.

    I'll have to look into this, curious to see the monthly average absolute value data.

    That range for earthshine looks like a typo - curious where the range 03.-5.0 µm comes from.

    According to Wien's law, the polar ice cap earthshine peak at say -80°F is around 14µm and the equatorial peak is maybe around 9µm at 100°F.

    Peak IR radiant cooling at about 10µm is unimpeded by CO2.

    Given that water vapor is a positive feedback GHG,

    and that 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans that account for the majority of the equatorial peak adsorption of solar energy,

    what has contained / limited this cycle?

    A magical perfect amount of land mass with its diverse surface characteristics?

    Who knows that phytoplankton won't eventually photosynthesize the excess CO2 resulting in a baby-boom for whales?
     
  13. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow.

    That is an amazing link.

    It actually offers some analysis on diurnal cloud cover.

    This is going to take some time to read.

    Thanks for actually bringing it Mike.
     
  14. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    State of Fear

    According to Alex Jones reptiles thrive in air conditioned offices in DC.

    Check in with New Orleans - they're already living below sea level, somehow, right there on the edge of the sea.

    Sure, cyclones flooded her a few times, and lots of other coastal locations that are above sea level.

    Fear the Heat!

    Puget Sound becomes the new gulf coast?

    Really?
     
  15. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was referencing your post #164, http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/science-denial.577368/page-7#post-1072048188

    Which apparently you got from here:

    https://www.ipcc.ch
     
  16. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    "Earthshine" does not refer to the earth's blackbody radiation. It refers to a technique used to measure the earth's albedo.

    This is a description of that technique from Skeptical Science, "The albedo effect and global warming".

    https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect-intermediate.htm

    "One way to measure the Earth's albedo is the use of earthshine. This is sunlight reflected from the Earth, then reflected from the Moon back to the nighttime Earth. Earthshine has been measured at the Big Bear Solar Observatory since November 1998 (with some measurements in 1994 and 1995)."

    "How accurate is the earthshine method in determining global albedo? The earthshine method doesn't give a global albedo estimate. It covers about one third of the Earth at each observation occasion and certain areas can never be ‘‘seen’’ from the measurement site. Furthermore the measurements are sparsely sampled in time, and only made in a narrow wavelength band of 0.4 to 0.7 µm (Bender 2006)."

    In contrast, satellite data such as CERES is a global measure of the Earth’s reflected shortwave radiation, including the effects of all atmospheric and surface properties. It covers a broader spectrum than earthshine (0.3–5.0 µm)"

    Since the reflected light is from the sun and not the earth, the 0.3 um to 5.0 um bandwidth is sufficient.

    [​IMG]


    Also from phys.org, "New data on the variability of the Earth's reflectance over the last 16 Years".

    https://phys.org/news/2016-05-variability-earth-years.html

    "However, a complementary way to measure the reflectance, which does not suffer the same calibration errors since it is a relative measurement, is from the ground, using telescopes that observe the so-called earthshine (the light reflected from the Earth to the night-time face of the Moon). This method has been used during the period 1998-2014 from the Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO) in California, and also, since 2007 from the Earthshine telescope at the Teide Observatory (Tenerife), to measure this climate parameter. These observations were aimed at increasing the temporal coverage of the measurements, and reducing the measurement errors."

    "The result of this study is that, applying strict quality criteria to the measurements of the earthshine, and after re-calibrating the measurements taken from the CERES instrument in space, the variations found in the value of the albedo not only agree in magnitude but also show identical, small annual variations over the 14 years that the two types of observations overlap. Philip Goode, lead earthshine researcher at BBSO explains that "Although the measurements that we have made of the albedo over the past 16 years show monthly and annual variations, there is virtually no change in the long term. This also coincides with a stabilization in the mean temperature of the planet", he says."


    Grey Matter asks: What has contained / limited this cycle?

    The process below involves negative feedback. Decreasing albedo causes a rise in Earth's temperature, which causes the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, which increases cloudiness, and that causes increased albedo. resulting in a cooler atmosphere and earth.

    This paragraph is from the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS), "Core Concept: Albedo is a simple concept that plays complicated roles in climate and astronomy".
    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/51/25369

    "And yet, as with many factors influencing climate, albedo’s effects are complicated. Changes in Earth’s overall albedo, for example, influence the planet’s average temperature, which in turn affects the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold, which in turn affects our planet’s cloudiness—which in turn affects the planet’s albedo, starting the cycle anew. Because researchers often have difficulty determining how strong such feedbacks are, it’s hard to incorporate them in climate models."
     
  17. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for the clarification on earthshine.

    Your response on why the positive feedback water effect hasn't of itself caused runaway global warming is a bit less than impressive.

    And that it is "hard to incorporate them in climate models" is, well, what exactly is it?

    It is a whole full blown admission of my complaint is what it is.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My point here is that there ARE two portions to the IPCC reports.

    One is the science of climate change.

    The other is policy response.

    The fact that you don't like the policy response is not justification for deciding the science is invalid.
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a ridiculous limitatioin on policy decision making.

    Our government (and that of other countries) NEVER make policy on complete or proven understanding. The reason is that perfect and proven knowledge is pretty much NEVER available.

    There are numerous opininions on how to guide or stimulate our economy among economic experts. We are far from being able to prove how the length of sentencing impacts crime statistics. Our energy policy is not based on curent knowledge of our energy economy. We have NO IDEA of how much military we need to be "safe". We have no proof of how effective it would be to have a foreign policy based on international cooperation. We can't prove what the optimum spending on FEMA might be. We make tax policy on the basis of TOTAL NONSENSE like the Lafer curve - a curve where, regardless of such methodology, we very clearly have NO IDEA where we are on the curve and we NEVER get the response that curve claims will come. We go to WAR with Iraq without even the remotest concern about the outcome - let alone any claim that the outcome has been thought about by experts. This goes on and on and on, as our government does NOT look for proof of ANYTHING.


    As Newt Gingrich once said, we make policy based on likelihoods (NOT proof) multiplied by the possible costs of the outcomes.

    It's just plain STUPID to suggest that in the case of climate change we have to be paralyzed until there is perfect knowledge.

    Besides, the federal government is NOT looking for knowledge. Answers to your questins about climatology would not matter any more than medical experts testifying on the science of COVID masks has mattered.
     
  20. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apologies, my choice of words in post 230 was a bit necessary, but also a bit overly pejorative.

    Apparently, you know more about the IPCC and what it does than it explains on its own website, https://www.ipcc.ch,

    Please provide your source in support of your assertion that the IPCC reports feature two parts, one of which is policy response.

    upload_2020-10-10_0-8-53.png
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2020
  21. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You might want to re-read my positions.

    I do not claim "the science is invalid" simply due to the proposed policies with which I mostly disagree.

    My biggest gripe with the science is that the models all, courtesy of the IPCC, presuppose CO2 as the cause and not inconveniently arrive at the truth that it is the CO2.

    All of the so called independent climate modelers are uninterested in the hard part?

    Does that sound to you like what scientists do?

    Given the opportunity to model the hard part, they just skip it?

    Why?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2020
  22. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I really am disappointed with this post.

    I was under the impression that you had a pretty good understanding of technical concepts and how government applies this knowledge by regulating numerous features of our society.

    I can assure you that our government and many others enforce many policies on proven knowledge.

    You cite egregious examples of policy that I agree is ill-supported by proven research and ignore vast others that are.

    When you drive over a modern concrete highway, do you often fear it will collapse beneath you?

    When you purchase USDA certified butchered meat products, do you often fear that they are infected with e. coli?

    When you take a shower, do you put on a nose clip worried that Naegleria fowleri might infect you?

    ***

    It is not clear to me your intention with this post.

    Are you asserting that the examples you've provided justify measures like France taxing a Chevy Suburban at €20k/y?

    On unproven science?

    You agree then that the MODELS and the IPCC and the so called consensus "science" is not proof?
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly.

    Their wording explains the two objectives - the assessment of climate change and its sources and the evaluation of possible remedies.

    Those making policy decisions need BOTH of those.

    For example, knowing the issues with CO2 is not good enough as a foundation for investment in a clean energy direction. One must also know about the potential for a clean energy direction to make a difference.

    Doesn't this seem obvious?
     
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know about this problem for the simply reason that the IPCC TOLD you about it.

    And, your quoted cite describes why it is hard to incorporate global issues such as changes in albedo, especially when modeling the likely effect of just one of the several components of forcing.

    I'd point out that this isn't true just for albedo. It also holds for factors such as limits to oceans as heat sinks, the melting of permafrost allowing for huge increases in natural methane production (where methan is FAR more serious as a greenhouse gas on a per volume basis), the possible changes in ocean currents that have such a huge effect on heat distribution, etc. Even just the effect of increased CO2 concentration on total waer vapor presents difficulties.

    The cool thing here is that science informs you about these issues of feedback loops. So, you KNOW these issues are being considered.
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,272
    Likes Received:
    16,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see anything you've said here that counters anything in my post.

    Our roads aren't built the way they are because science proved that to be the way to do it. First of all, they were designed by ENGINEERS. And, our roads of all types are works of incemental improvement as we see impacts on safety, environment, society, etc.

    The same goes with our approach to e. coli. Our politicians change policy based on their observations of the effectiveness of current policy, its cost, views on regulation, etc. In fact, these regulations are under attack for PURELY political reasons that have NOTHING to do with science. What the FDA does is seen as BAD for reasos that have nothing to do with determining whether policy is working. For example, farmers TODAY would like to see more requirements for testing to ensure food safety. AND they have even said they would be willing to pay for it. Think about it - and outbreak of e. coli has a gigantic impact on our food producers. The time required to find the root of the prolem can be devestaging and can be reduced by relatively inexpensive testing. Again - this is not about science "proving" something.

    Your last sentence is especially ridiculous.

    The IPCC is dedicated to presenting the very best understnding we have concerning climatology. Suggesting we ignore that is just plain ridiculous. It's the very best information mankind has developed on the subject. And, the forecasts have panned out - in fact, there is evidence that they are an underestimate of the warming that is taking place.

    Another factor here is that because of feedback loops, long lasting impact of emissions, etc., waiting is a devestatingly bad idea.

    Finally, I'd point out that science doesn't actually have any way of "proving" that a predicted result will occur. NO natural science has that. It's possible to prove that ann hypothesis is false, but it's not possible to prove it is true.

    So, in the natural sciences EVERY result comes with error bars and likelihoods - NOT proof. (Sometimes proof is claimed when these statistical measures show no real chance of any other possibility.)

    Again, our public policy is NOT made by waiting for proof. Science contributes to policy making by presenting information on probabilities and costs.

    And, like with COVID, a lot of policy makers have decided not to bother being informed by science.
     

Share This Page