
Climate science: A sensitive matter - iProject
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
======
gmcquillan
I don't know that I agree with the thesis of this article whatsoever;
basically some cherry-picked research estimates "we may only see 1.5 to 2
degree increases, and we haven't had any real warming in the past 10 years;
Therefore, we might want to reevaluate the amount of energy and attention we
spend on mitigating carbon emissions"

That seems like a pretty flimsy argument.

1\. I don't think there's strong evidence that 'global average temperatures
stopped increasing.' Many of the world's largest average temperature readings
have happened in the last ten years (2010, especially, but even recent reports
show upward trends: <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13>).

2\. Cherry-picking a few people whose models show a lower than average range,
doesn't tell me anything other than the author of this article is suffering
from wishful thinking.

3\. The heart of the article seems to be suggesting this: "If climate change
isn't that bad, maybe we don't have to do anything about it, " but ignores the
opposite proposition. Oddly, I'm not even sure why such an article is
necessary since the world collectively isn't making any earnest attempts to
curb carbon emissions. Any reductions have been economically based, not
environmental.

No, I think this is a hit piece on the climate change movement couched as due-
diligence and beneficial skepticism.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Interesting take on it. I didn't see it as a hit piece so much as a "Hmm, what
do we make of this?" piece.

The data that the temperature for the last 10 years has remained basically
flat is coming from the exact same sources that have advocated awareness of
anthropogenic change, the IPCC being one of them. Unless things change a lot
we're very much in danger of having the mean temperature of the planet land
outside the error bars in the models.

What that means is that climate is a complicated thing (not too surprising),
and that the models are missing some components.

The article wasn't about "Cherry picking" as far as I read it was more along
the lines, "Well if all 21 models of the IPCC are inaccurate, what are some of
the models they rejected?" That is asking the question, "If we don't have the
right answer, what other answers were proposed?" Finding a model that both
explains the previous temperatures with the data we have and is more
accurately predicting the changes we're observing is the goal.

~~~
gmcquillan
And the "What do we make of this" is definitely a valid question. Every model
is going to be inaccurate to some degree. We should strive to improve them!

I took issue with picking a few individual researchers' models which have a
lower range than the IPCC estimates (which are influenced by those lower
estimates). The case could, and probably is, be made for higher ranged
estimates. The point is, if you curate a subset of models to bolster your
bias, you're not contributing any meaningful data to the discourse.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I read it that they were taking those studies with the lower range because the
temperature as measured is about to fall out of the lowest range predicted by
the IPCC models. I suspect, but can't prove, that if temperature were about to
fall out of the upper range of predicted temperatures they would have selected
a few models that the IPCC had rejected that showed that as an outcome.

I agree with the statement "Every model is going to be inaccurate to some
degree." the problem here is that when the actual temperatures start landing
outside the range of even the _uncertainty bars_ for a model it ceases to be
"inaccurate" and is simply "wrong."

The political sensitivity of that possibility can not to be under estimated.

~~~
gmcquillan
I think that if the uncertainty of the models were under threat, then this
would be a bigger issue. We'd be reading about this in Nature, not The
Economist.

This premise, I think, has flaws:

I didn't see any citation for the "past 15 years air temperatures at the
Earth’s surface have been flat" number, but I do notice that the NASA number
quoted is a five year running average (over only 10 years), which would
naturally flatten any trends over that time frame.

It seems like this notion that "warming is over" is pretty cyclical. Check
out: [http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-
january-2007-...](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-
january-2007-to-january-2008-basic.htm)

This image in particular is interesting:
[http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500....](http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif)

------
FD3SA
We seldom address climate discussions from a perspective of geological
timescales [1].

From this, it is clear that life has existed on earth throughout an extreme
range of atmospheric conditions. However, it is quite possible that nature's
response to these conditions may be severely limited due to human intervention
(clear-cutting rain forests, etc.).

I hope that in the near future it will be economically advantageous to
transition away from fossil fuels. Elon Musk believes this will be the case
[2], and I sincerely hope he is correct. Fossil fuels are a non-sustainable
energy source which are being rapidly depleted and already cost far more in
externalities than we realize (pollution, war, market instability, etc.).
Climate change should not be the only impetus for a transition to a
sustainable energy infrastructure.

1\. <http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg>

2\. [http://www.treehugger.com/cars/elon-musk-ted-
talk-2013-tesla...](http://www.treehugger.com/cars/elon-musk-ted-
talk-2013-tesla-spacex-solarcity-and-more.html)

~~~
ChuckMcM
_"We seldom address climate discussions from a perspective of geological
timescales"_

I used to make fun of people who talked about "The { biggest | smallest |
hottest | coldest | whatever } <thing> in _recorded history_!" By drawing a
bar for "History" (4.5 billion year planetary existence) and "Recorded
History" nominally a 5,000 year stretch at the end there. Basically about
.0001% of the length. So you draw "history" as a meter long bar on the chart
and "recorded history" is a strip .1mm wide. Basically thinner than the line
an ultrafine Sharpie(tm) pen draws.

Needless to say, it wasn't a really compelling way to make a point. :-)

~~~
jpadkins
isn't recorded history only 150 years? How long have we had accurate
thermometers with reliable, consistent recordings?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Well there is 'recorded history' (generic) and 'recorded weather' (specific).
The latter came a bit later, the former arguably started in ancient Egypt (my
5,000 years ago or 3000 BCE) but some will put it earlier in Sumeria. There is
an argument to be made that records of crop yields or floods in the Nile river
basin are legitimate indications of weather conditions at the time (certainly
droughts and floods).

The other reason to pick 5,000 rather than 150 as a starting point is that
folks will argue with you about written history starting at 150 years ago but
are willing to concede that beyond 5,000 years there isn't a lot of
information to extract. The point to be made is that geologically speaking,
5,000 years is a trifling. Even when you consider the 65M years since the
dinosaurs left us, we're looking at .008% or a mark a mere 8mm wide for 1meter
at 65M years.

------
tokenadult
The fossils in the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles

[http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/03/27/mysteries-of-the-
tar-p...](http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/03/27/mysteries-of-the-tar-pits/)

provide a rich record of a variety of mammal and bird species going through
almost 30,000 years of the last glacial-interglacial cycle. What's remarkable
about the fossils is the statis in the body forms of the wide variety of
animals trapped in the tar pits. Significant climate change resulted in
indistinguishable evolutionary change in those animals. As scientists continue
to work on predicting the probable effects of future climate changes, looking
back on verifiable examples like well dated fossil beds will be helpful in
putting bounds on the predictions.

~~~
btilly
There is nothing remarkable about that. 30,000 years is very short
evolutionarily. The best response to climate change in that time frame is
migration, not adaptation.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
30,000 is an evolutionary eternity. The huge variety of bizarre dog breeds was
created over a few centuries. Foxes were turned from nigh untameable wild
animals into pets in a few decades.

~~~
jessriedel
That's not evolution, that's selective breeding by humans.

~~~
agildehaus
Selection is a component of evolution. Human selection is just one type of it,
natural being the other.

Wolves did evolve into dogs, but not naturally by our definition of "natural".

------
Retric
I can't help but wonder why the economist would mention something and then say
"This study has not been peer-reviewed." I would assume there are plenty of
peer reviewed literature to look at so why did they bother to even read it? Is
this something that has revived little research, because people are still
assuming it's a short term anomaly?

As to energy-balance models's they don't account for the huge difference in
average temperatures between the poles and the equator, it takes far less
energy to maintain a 3C increase in Alaska than Florida. As such weather
patterns are really important.

~~~
pav3l
"Peer-reviewed" does not mean correct, or vice versa. The study they are
talking about was done by the Research Council of Norway. I am assuming the
goal was to inform the public, not to get published in a scientific journal.
It was not an academic exercise. I, for one, am very happy that the Economist
included this study in their survey.

~~~
Retric
The primary advantage to being peer reviewed is to avoid stupid mistakes.
That's not to say it's correct, but it's like saying here is my book I did not
have anyone proofread it. It could be a great book, but I just had a few red
flags pop up.

Now, if the goal is to inform the public you base it on some peer reviewed
research and repackage that instead of releasing original research in that
fashion. All I am saying is the way the economist presented it was odd. I was
assuming they where looking for something to create a little controversy to
keep things interesting, but it just seemed odd to use something as a
reference and then make it seem less credible at the same time.

~~~
shardling
> I was assuming they where looking for something to create a little
> controversy to keep things interesting, but it just seemed odd to use
> something as a reference and then make it seem less credible at the same
> time.

 _If_ a report like that is well written, it will provide a decent
introduction to the ideas, and _also_ have an exhaustive list of references.
In that sense it makes a better reference for a journalist or layman than the
original papers, which can be hard to interpret! And you can still go and look
at the original sources if you like.

------
crazy1van
Why is it so hard to believe that the Earth is a stable system that can absorb
shocks like CO2 emissions? It has supported life for millions of years.
Clearly it is not as brittle as the typical climate scientist would have us
believe.

~~~
DanBC
> Why is it so hard to believe that the Earth is a [. . .]

Because of the wealth of evidence that tells us otherwise.

> can absorb shocks like CO2 emissions? It has supported life for millions of
> years.

'absorbing shocks' and 'supporting life' doesn't mean 'supporting human life
comfortably'.

I don't understand the outrage about climate change, since reducing co2
emissions is mostly about being more energy efficient. How is that a terrible
thing? My parents lived through 'Pea Soupers'[1] (a 4 day fog killed 4,000
people in London); we've seen the effects of gridlock and poor public
transport; working on better solutions before the billions of China and India
need a gas-guzzling car each doesn't feel like having any downsides.

[1]
([http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/perspect/london.h...](http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/perspect/london.html))

~~~
paganel
> absorbing shocks' and 'supporting life' doesn't mean 'supporting human life
> comfortably'.

And why do we think of ourselves as being superior to other past species? I
generally don't like metaphors, but I remember reading somewhere (there were
also a couple of animated representations in support) that we're more like a
virus that has infected the Earth (its ecosystem etc.).

Looking at it through those lenses we have a couple of options left open until
the host (Earth's ecosystem) ends up changing in such a way that will
eliminate us. We can slow down the rate of infection by lowering our numbers
or at least our growth rate. This has already started happening by itself in
the more "advanced" countries. It will probably also happen in the rest of
world at some point.

Or we can keep our numbers and numerical growth-rate but we'll need to start
inflicting lesser and lesser pain on our host. Realistically, I don't see that
happening anytime soon.

Or we can increase our efforts in finding a new host, or at least a "disease
transmitter" (or whatever the scientific term is) that will carry and support
us until we stumble upon a host similar to Earth. Let's say a space-ship or
something of the sorts. I know this looks too much like science-fiction right
now, but if we're serious about our long-term survival as a species we need to
start looking at it that way.

~~~
maxharris
_And why do we think of ourselves as being superior to other past species?_

On superiority: other species don't have a conceptual view of the world. Every
other species can't read and understand your argument, let alone refute it.
This has ramifications on a political level: _In order to have individual
rights, you have to be capable of understanding what individual rights are._
Imagine the ridiculous spectacle of taking a bear to court for mauling another
animal, or a person.

What it comes down to is this: I want to live. Not just to metabolize and take
up space like other animals do, but to live a full _human_ life. That means
having a huge impact on animals, no matter what I do (short of suicide). Even
if I didn't eat meat, there are plenty of things that are crucial for human
life (everything from agriculture to medical progress to displacing animals to
make way for cities and factories). The choice is clear: either humans are
first, or they don't live distinctly human lives at all.

I am a human being, and I take pride in that fact. Because I am a human being,
I can create art, write software, further our knowledge of the world through
science, enjoy literature, and a whole host of other things that no member of
any other species (currently known) will ever do.

~~~
lobster_johnson
> _In order to have individual rights, you have to be capable of understanding
> what individual rights are_

That's ridiculous. That's like saying children or people with Down syndrome
have no individual rights because they don't understand them.

On the contrary, since we have a superior intellect, we are capable of making
moral judgements, and since we are capable, we are morally obliged to.

> _The choice is clear: either humans are first, or they don't live distinctly
> human lives at all._

You have the right to live your life as you choose, of course, but not at the
cost of destroying everything else. At some point, we need to consider the
aggregate consequences of there being 6.9+ billion people all demanding to
live "distinctly human lives". Unfortunately, for coming generations this idea
may be a luxury.

~~~
maxharris
_That's ridiculous. That's like saying..._

I agree, there is a problem with that sentence.

However, I'm not sure that it helps your argument much. People with Down
syndrome are still human beings - with the ability to form concepts and speak
language. Although they don't understand as much about the world as you and I
do, they certainly understand a great deal more than any bear would. (Also
they won't maul you.)

 _since we have a superior intellect, we are capable of making moral
judgements, and since we are capable, we are morally obliged to_

I have a different view: in order to survive and thrive, each individual has
to make moral judgements. That which furthers a particular person's life is
the good (and he ought to choose it, _if_ he wants to live), and that which
harms it is the evil.

 _At some point, we need to consider the aggregate consequences of there being
6.9+ billion people all demanding to live "distinctly human lives"._

Do you realize that "aggregate consequences" include the longest lifespans in
human history (in industrialized nations)? A steady decline in climate-related
deaths (which have _fallen 98% in the past century_ )? The vast quantity and
variety of food available at low prices at grocery stores? The ability to go
across the continent in a matter of hours, safely? Need I go on?

~~~
lobster_johnson
> _Do you realize that "aggregate consequences" include the longest lifespans
> in human history_

No, that is what I meant by aggregate consequences. What you describe is the
cause, or at best merely the current situation.

My point is that 6.9+ billion all thinking selfishly about their own right to
live full lives leads to the modern equivalent of the tragedy of the commons.

50-60 years ago, we could reasonably argue that the most important right for a
human being was self-realization. At this point, unfortunately, a single
modern life contributes so much to the very destruction of the world -- in
fact, even owning a moderately-sized dog contributes to the destruction of the
world -- in a way that did not apply to previous generations, and that self-
realization can no longer include the level of material wealth and, frankly,
consumerist squandering that the current generations are built upon.

For example, the "vast quantity" of food "at low prices" you describe exist at
the detriment of someone else in the world. If _everyone_ on the planet had
access vast quantities of food at low prices, in today's market system, then
the world's resources would be depleted at an unsustainable (or rather, more
unsustainable that today) rate.

Your world view seems extremely simplistic and naive. I sincerely hope it's
not representative of the typical HN liberartian. Libertarianism is about
liberty, true, but not liberty at a cost to society.

~~~
maxharris
_squandering that the current generations are built upon._

What is your basis for determining what constitutes "squandering"? Does
wearing machine-washed clothes qualify? Buying new clothes so you feel good
about the way you look? How about using a dishwasher to wash dishes? What
about having a pet dog? How about building new homes, spacious enough so you
have room to pursue hobbies and keep rooms from being cluttered and
overwhelming?

 _For example, the "vast quantity" of food "at low prices" you describe exist
at the detriment of someone else in the world._

You have offered no evidence to support this. Ad hominems ("extremely
simplistic and naive") won't cut it here.

~~~
lobster_johnson
> _You have offered no evidence to support this._

Because I assumed it's common knowledge. Take a look at any of the countries
that supply most of the world with food, natural resources, etc. Most of them
are not anywhere near the first world in terms of wealth, living standards,
etc. for the local population, and yet they are the major providers.

> _What is your basis for determining what constitutes "squandering"?_

Most of human activity could be classified as squandering. We don't need most
of the stuff that we have or consume. And yet it's very hard to give it up for
the benefit of everyone else.

> _Ad hominems_ ...

Not an ad hominem considering I spent the preceding paragraphs pointing out
_how_ your opinions were simplistic and naive.

------
Tycho
Have you noticed that no one talks about 3rd world debt these days? Remember
Live 8?

There seems to be a hierarchy of problems that the public/media keeps track
of. 8 Years ago we were all talking about global warming and 3rd world debt.
Then the economy crashed. Now we talk about the economy all day, with climate
change relegated to occasional page 4 articles when a new study is published.
Nobody even mentions 3rd world debt.

And that gives you an idea of how likely anyone is to change their behaviour
based off the predictions of climate scientists (or even based off _actual_
climate change, given that it happens so slowly).

~~~
unabridged
I don't understand the fascination with 3rd world debt, either the countries
keep paying at the detriment to domestic spending or they default and end up
with higher interest rates. That is it. These are non-recourse loans, the IMF
or World Bank or whoever is not going to invade to get paid back.

Debt forgiveness is still default, just more socially accepted. But just like
default it will still end with less trust and higher interest.

~~~
Tycho
Do existing national debt payments and potential higher interest rates for
future borrowing have an equilibrium? I mean obviously the former helps keep
the latter at bay, but can you really say they are in balance and that it
wouldn't be better to simply default on the debt and then borrow less in
future?

I suppose if more countries got serious about cancelling the debt, there would
also start to be talk from charities/activists of guaranteeing future rates.

------
ramblerman
I'm not versed in climatology or environmental science, and frankly neither
are most people. The issue of global warming really confuses me to the point
that I'm now on the fence. I've seen people with no knowledge on the matter
become violent when it is challenged. A typical rebuttal might be "Well the
glaciers are disappearing" in the same way christian fundamentalists use one
liners to negate evolution. Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that
worrying.

\--- P.S I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent
change, but the psychology surrounding global warming is odd and interesting.

------
guscost
Politicians shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the energy industry, period.
Questions about the analysis of temperature signals are interesting but often
beside the point.

~~~
pagekicker
And the energy industry shouldn't be allowed to manipulate politicians?

~~~
guscost
Of course, but that doesn't justify corruption.

~~~
pagekicker
Didn't say that it did.

------
adventured
Currently enjoying a foot of snow in my yard in Spring, with this being the
4th greatest snow fall season in recorded history locally.

Yeah I'm a skeptic. Global cooling -> global warming -> global climate change.
As the climate fails to heat up as predicted, the names and claims will once
again shift.

~~~
gmac
Which is why the phrase 'climate change' is preferred to 'global warming'.

Mean global temperatures will rise, and a key result of this may well be
higher variability, with correspondingly more extreme weather events. There is
no sense in which a freak snowfall disproves climate change: quite the
reverse.

~~~
Shivetya
Granted, but a little over a hundred years ago there were some might fine
blizzards not equaled since.

I think they key here is, people lost interest when every little thing was
declared global warming and then started rolling their eyes when the switch
was made to "climate change". Fanaticism has a tendency to cause people to
tune out, worse is when its driven to political and financial benefit of a
few.

