
Diamond planets, climate change and the scientific method - evolve2k
http://theconversation.edu.au/diamond-planets-climate-change-and-the-scientific-method-3329
======
hugh3
This thread is relevant to my interests.

On the subject of the "diamond" planet, I'm actually surprised to see the lead
author of the paper in question referring to it as a "diamond planet". I
thought that was just a media label. I read the paper when it came out, and
all that was indicated was that an extremely large (Jupiter-mass) extremely
dense (much smaller than Jupiter) body was detected orbiting a pulsar. The
density was consistent with something reasonably close to diamond, but I would
have thought that there always has to be _some_ other elements in there... and
in any case I wasn't convinced that the vast majority of the interior would be
cool enough to be crystalline rather than liquid carbon. So while I'm very
confident that there's _some_ extremely massive, extremely dense planet
orbiting that star, I'm yet to be one hundred percent convinced that "diamond"
is the correct label for it.

Which brings me neatly to the _actual_ point of the article, on climate
change. I'm somewhat out of my field here, but no more than the author is. The
reason I'm skeptical about the hypothesis "burning fossil fuels is likely to
cause significant and disastrous climate change in the future" is that it's
all based on simulations which can't be tested against experiment. And I _do_
simulations for a living, so I know enough about them to be very skeptical
whenever confronted with simulations in the absence of experiment. Maybe it's
true, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were, but I'm certainly not willing to
talk about it as if it's as strongly supported as... well, the vast majority
of other stuff that we mean when we talk about 'science'.

The strength of a scientific theory is (and I'm still working on figuring out
exactly how to phrase this) determined by the question of "If this turned out
to be false, how much experimental data would suddenly be very difficult to
explain?" If evolution were false, then pretty much _all_ of biology is
suddenly very difficult to explain. If the hypothesis "big dense planet thing
orbiting PSR J1719−1438" turns out to be false, then there's a bunch of
measurements which are very hard to explain. On the other hand if the
hypothesis " _diamond_ planet orbiting PSR J1719−1438" is false then it's not
at all difficult to explain. And if the hypothesis of significant
anthropogenic climate change turns out to be false, then this makes very
little difference to our ability to explain existing experimental data.

~~~
demallien
You seem a bit unclear about the scientific process as it applies to climate
change.

Firstly, here are the undisputable facts - facts that can be reproduced in a
laboratory without relying on simulations.

a) Sunlight bouncing off the Earth's surface is red-shifted.

b) CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb red light more than other forms of
light, which they re-emit, often back towards the ground / lower atmosphere.

c) The amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing, as
directly measured

d) this increase correlates with calculations associated with how much CO2 we
are emittting through the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

Those are the facts. Looking at those facts, it seems pretty clear that the
null hypothesis for climate change is that the temperature of the lower
atmosphere should be increasing. We would expect the temperature to rise,
_unless there is some process that we don't know about that is affecting the
numbers_

When we put the hypothesis to the test - is the temperature increasing? - we
see that it is indeed increasing, which confirms the model.

Now, about those simulations. Yes, they are not as reliable as the science I
just when through above. We know that. But they all agree with the null
hypothesis that the temperature will rise if we keep increasing the amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere. If you want to throw that result into dispute, you need
to show that there is some process going on that we didn't know about, and
hence haven't been included in the models, or you need to show that the
simulations themselves are actually wrong.

What you can't do, if you want to be scientific about, is just state that you
are skeptical about the simulations, and therefore we shouldn't act/create
policy based on those simulations. I mean, sure, you can hold to that, but you
have to admit that you are just being irrationally skeptical, and not
scientific at all if that's the position you wish to hold.

~~~
gavanwoolery
You seem a bit unclear about the scientific process as well. Take hugh3's
example and throw out anthropogenic global warming. Do the facts still hold?

The earth had dramatic warm and cool periods long before humans, and will
continue to despite us.

No one is questioning whether or not humans or CO2 have an impact - we all
know that we do. The question is whether or not we have a SIGNIFICANT impact.
That is, enough of an impact that we should actually give a damn, given we
probably wont be using fossil fuels in 100 years anyway.

If the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, why are scientists
falsifying data like in ClimateGate?

Much evidences suggests that we are headed into another "Little Ice Age" like
in the 1700s. But few people talk about this for some reason.

~~~
gavanwoolery
Demallien -

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/>

Here you go :)

I would emphasize that there is no more proof that we are headed into an Ice
Age than there is that we are headed into a particularly warm period, I only
mention the Ice Age because so few people talk about it. Weather is very
difficult to model - we can barely model next month's weather accurately, let
alone the next hundred years.

In particular, here is the major fallacy: Even if weather did sharply rise
over a century, there is no telling what that might mean for the following
century. In fact, if you look at most temperature spikes, they are usually
followed by cool periods. It is like saying that because tomorrow is hot, and
the next day hotter, that we must be headed into a really hot period. It
simply does not work like this.

As for ClimateGate, I'm not really into conspiracies, but it would not
surprise me if some scientists had their asses covered. Imagine the people who
would look stupid for handing a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. Not that hard to
pull strings on these so called "investigations" - everyone has a price.

~~~
Tichy
We learned about the ice ages coming in cycles in school, 25 years ago. It is
common knowledge - I think the climate researchers have probably heard about
it, too. Honestly, I am so tired of hearing this oh so clever counterpoint.

~~~
gavanwoolery
I guess we should just ignore all counterpoints, because you are tired of
hearing them. That's real science!

~~~
gavanwoolery
Tichy - I do not think there is any conspiracy around ice ages - all that data
is readily available. There is, apparently, willful ignorance though.

~~~
gavanwoolery
Tichy (won't let me reply directly, think its nested too deep) - "Do you have
evidence that any climate researchers ignored the cycles of the ice ages?"

Yes, actually. If you look at 99 percent of studies, they are based on
temperatures from maybe 1500 (at the earliest) to present. In geological time,
this is the blink of an eye.

Here is a relevant quote from Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor
of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature
over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times
higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the
depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the
basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent
relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past
century's modest warming?"

~~~
sesqu
Sorry, but did you just argue that there is a slow cooling effect that cannot
be seen, but that explains or will soon negate the rapid warming effect that
has been detected?

~~~
Tichy
Ice ages appear in cycles, that much is known. Sorry it was 25 years ago that
I learned about it, so I forgot about the causes. However, the cycles are
rather slow, so it seems possible that warming catches up with us faster than
the next ice age. IANACS, though

------
zeteo
> there is actually no difference between how science works in astronomy and
> climate change – or any other scientific discipline for that matter. We make
> observations, run simulations, test and propose hypotheses, and undergo peer
> review of our findings.

Things change a lot when your scientific theories need to be transformed into
policies, though. If these same authors had also proposed, say, spending a
significant proportion of world GDP to send a spaceship to the said diamond
planet, their theories would be received more critically, I imagine.

~~~
ars
That sentence isn't even correct. There is a MASSIVE difference between
simulation based science and experiment based science.

I consider simulation based science interesting as theory (theoretical
science), but it should NEVER be taken as accepted fact.

~~~
nl
_I consider simulation based science interesting as theory (theoretical
science), but it should NEVER be taken as accepted fact._

It depends on the field and the degree of accuracy. For example, hydrodynamic
simulations are pretty much accurate for standard(ish) shapes. Same with
lighting simulations (ie, ray tracing).

~~~
ars
Those are based on experiments. Only after the experiments were the
simulations added. And with those it's possible to compare a simulation and a
realization and improve the accuracy of the simulation.

i.e. the science is based on experiments, not simulations. After the science
was learned, simulations were added, but the science was not learned from the
simulation.

------
ChuckMcM
TL;DR version - our press was positive because their is no political agenda in
astrophysics at the moment. It then goes to pity climate scientists who are
pilloried because politicians have chosen to use their words to enact and
enforce policies that their constituents don't like.

Astrophysics was a lot tougher discipline to be in if you were Galileo. Again
the science was was being perverted to show support for what the government
wanted to be true, rather than what was true. I suspect that if someone could
have sold the church on a way to 'fix' difference between what science was
telling them, and what they wanted to be true, they would have wasted millions
doing that too.

Galileo knew that no matter how hard they wished it, the planets would not
suddenly stop in its orbit and the universe begin to rotate around it. No more
than any amount of wishing, better behaviors, and offerings of gold could stop
the seasons (or the climate for that matter) from changing.

Not sure we've learned all that much about mixing science and policy since
Galileo's time.

------
robryan
One big problem is that usually the person with the loudest voice gets the
most attention, even if they are from the fringes of science. The real climate
scientist don't want to use absolute certain language as that's not what the
results tell them and their conclusions are harder to whittle down into a 30
second news report. Those without so much evidence to back them up are more
than happy to deal in absolutes.

------
kevinpet
Anyone in climate science who does not understand why their work is
controversial is living in a cave or willfully ignorant at this point.

1\. Many climate scientists claim authority to make policy recommendations,
something which is outside the realm of science. (Science ideally informs
policy, but policy is about tradeoffs which climate scientists have no
privileged insight into.)

2\. The public face of climate science is akin to a political attack ad.
Anyone who questions the policy recommendations of climate scientists is
painted with the same brush as creationists or conspiracy theorists.

3\. Climate scientists have mislead the public about their own science. When
we have a cold winter, then "weather isn't climate", but when we have heat
wave, then "we can't rule out the possibility that this is related to global
warming".

Of course, some climate scientists are careful to outline the limits of their
knowledge. It's just a few bad apples spoiling it for the honest 2%.

~~~
Tichy
"When we have a cold winter, then "weather isn't climate", but when we have
heat wave, then "we can't rule out the possibility that this is related to
global warming"."

Are you sure that is the scientists talking, and not just the "common folks"?
I never had the impression that climate science is terribly interested in
singular spots of measurements. The public of course reacts immediately. If
there is a warm winter, they all become believers in climate change, if there
is a cold winter, they become convinced it is all bunk.

Never mind that the climate change could indeed lead to some regions of the
world to actually become colder.

Maybe the problem is that everybody thinks they are experts on the weather,
too, after all, they can sense it with their own senses - not.

------
praxeologist
Diamond or not, that's a cool discovery. The author though is making a mistake
when he says that "The scientific method is universal. If we selectively
ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril."

Science is broader than those disciplines where the hypothetico-deductive
method is appropriate ("the natural sciences"). Science is the quest for
knowledge, and epistemology, or the "science of knowledge", informs us of
another particular method, the axiomatic-deductive, appropriate for "the
social sciences".

The first rule of "the scientific method" is there is no scientific methoD.
There are scientific methodS. The author has fallen victim to the all-too-
common "scientism" that has swept the globe from the 19th century onward.

Should it be enough that there is wide agreement in peer reviewed journals to
really make something so? In a similar situation, there's wide agreement from
economists on what makes the world tick, yet these folks with little job
prospects outside of government or academia manage to repeatedly fail to
create models which display predictive power.

In the case of economics, the 'scientific method' chosen, that of mathematical
economics, is inappropriate since human action "plays by different rules" than
pulsars. Climate scientists similarly have the ability to influence politics.

At least they are using the correct type of method, but to say that X number
of peer reviewed journals establishes the anthropocentric warming hypothesis
as true is a logical error. Climate scientists need to exhibit predictive
power and the fact is they haven't been able to do that. Historical evidence
also doesn't lend itself to the idea that small amounts of warming will lead
to disaster. It's a great story to put people into a panic and manipulate them
but there is just not the necessary proof.

For more details see Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming
claims: [http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/Ha...](http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/HaydenToJackson.pdf)

------
hartror
I've had friend doing his biology PHD say effectively the same thing as this
to me.

It is frustrating that science communication is such a PR game to the
detriment of the general public's understanding of what science is in reality.

------
natmaster
The author states, "...that suggests man-made activities are responsible for
changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere."

Notice the difference between that statement, and "OMG we're all going to die
a giant heat death 5 years from now if we don't give up all our liberties!"

------
Tim_Benham
There are no pure carbon white dwarfs. There are carbon-oxygen dwarfs.
Crystalline C/O doesn't sound as sexy as diamond. Scientists shade the truth
for publicity all the time.

------
viggity
"I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable
hypotheses" - Michael Crichton

A computer simulation is not a testable hypothesis, never has been, never will
be. There are millions of variables that go into our climate, to say that a
computer simulation can capture all of them is naive at best.

In regards to the diamond planet, nobody is suggesting we radically alter the
world economic system over a guess about a "diamond planet". The "climate
change" crowd has an entire legion of people dedicated to killing the world
economy over a bunch of un-testable computer simulations.

------
gavanwoolery
Going to throw this in the mix - this is definitely something to think about
when considering global warming.

Consult Google for these numbers - I checked a couple sources to find rough
estimates. Please correct me if I made an error. Obviously, this is a gross
simplification...

The atmosphere has 5×10^18 kg of mass. That is 5,000,000,000,000,000,000
kilograms of mass for people who like to see the zeros.

Just by breathing, the human race produces about 2.2 trillion kilograms of CO2
annually. However, humans are only a fraction of the earth's CO2-producing
biomass, about less than 1/1000 by some estimates. So that means that earth's
creatures probably produce over 2 quadrillion kilograms of CO2 annually! Human
technology (cars, power plants, etc) produce 27.2 trillion kilograms of CO2
annually. Let that sink in for a second - just by breathing, we produce a
magnitude greater amount of CO2 than fossil fuel ever will. Wow. So where is
it all going? My guess is photosynthesis is doing a pretty good job of keeping
things in balance, but I am open to suggestions.

------
cormullion
In case you haven't seen this, here's one programmer's perspective on working
in climate science:

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/23379965/Harry-Read-Me>

------
mckoss
Unlike astrophysicists, climate science has some very vocal members trying to
form policy decisions. The result of these decisions can mean spending
Trillions of dollars.

So we don't get to have dispassionate debate in the facts, as the stakes are
extremely high and incorrect conclusions can have enormously expensive
consequences.

~~~
m104
Also, unlike astrophysicists, climate science has some very vocal critics
trying to keep current policy decisions intact. The result of these decisions
can ensure billions in corporate profits over the coming years.

And so, as you say, we don't get to have dispassionate debate in the facts, as
the stakes are extremely high and incorrect conclusions can have disastrous
consequences.

------
orblivion
Well, it's an unfortunate fact that diamonds in space are not as politically
charged. In a vacuum it's unfair to give more scrutiny to climatologists, but
given that it is politically charged, there's reason to question people's
motives (and to be fair, people who will go overboard in the questioning).

------
gavanwoolery
The funny thing about climate change is how people treat it like a RELIGION.

I have nothing against religion, but I do not like it when people treat
science like a faith - that is, take the facts for granted, and assume they
are true, rather than trying to do what REAL scientists do, and prove their
hypotheses false.

I see a lot of scientists trying to prove that humans are a major cause of
global warming. I see very few of them looking for holes in their arguments,
or trying to prove their hypotheses wrong.

Do humans warm the earth? Absolutely, no question about it. The question is
whether or not we have a significant impact.

The earth has had dramatic warm and cold periods long before we even existed,
what makes us think that we are the catalyst for everything? Is it not a bit
concerning that many so-called scientists tried to hide data that went against
their research?

~~~
guelo
> I see very few of them looking for holes in their arguments, or trying to
> prove their hypotheses wrong.

Where have you been looking at the scientists' work? Have you been following
their peer-reviewed publications to reach the conclusion that they don't
question these theories?

~~~
gavanwoolery
Being peer-reviewed is a joke - especially when it is so easy to falsify or
hide data, as was done in ClimateGate.

Being peer-reviewed is also a joke when your peers all sip the same cool-aid.

~~~
guelo
You did not answer my question, where did you get your information that the
scientists have not tried to disprove the warming theories?

~~~
gavanwoolery
I'm going to repaste this for the sake of convenience:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)

If any study can address all of the concerns quoted here, I'll shut my mouth.

In the face of some of gaping inconsistencies, I would think that many studies
did not try to question their hypotheses thoroughly enough.

------
MarkPNeyer
for those interested, i interviewed several climatologists with some questions
i had about global warming. The results are on my blog:

<http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2009/12/10/climate-change/>

------
aangjie
Ok, long discussion, i cannot add much given my non-familiarity with climate
change science, but will point out this quote, i wrote some time back. "One
generation's science is the another generation's religion"

------
kapilash
If they want some "People on the fringe of science" to be quoted as "opponents
of their work", they should try saying that the existence of a diamond planet
4000 light years away from the earth is a proof that God did not create the
universe or some such.

But to me, it does not seem a well-thought blog. Who says a "scientific-
method" that works for identifying the structure of a planet 4K light years
away would also work for climate on earth?

------
blendergasket
My perspective on this is that, at least for people like myself, believing or
disbelieving in human caused climate change is completely an act of faith.

We can look at the situation, try to wade through the journal magazines, blogs
etc to find a reality behind it. But what we get, unless we have massive time
to invest, is basically all we get. We pick a perspective on it that we feel
defines us somehow, or fits with our worldview, and then dig in, surrounding
ourselves with media that fits the image.

I believe in global warming because it seems that the interests backing the
antiglobalwarming campaign have massive financial motivations for doing so.
Also, as an avid urban cyclists anything that gets more cars off the street or
at least regulates emissions, and pushes people towards smaller cars.

I trust the government and universities more than I trust big corporations and
I know corporations are absolutely willing to pay people to find/make science
that fits their preconceptions.

So in short I don't know. I took a guess, and I did so after weighing what I
assume to be the motivations of the actors, and the outcomes if either side is
wrong. If we prepare for global warming it will turn the world into a better
place whether or not there is such a thing as global warming.

~~~
hugh3
_So in short I don't know. I took a guess, and I did so after weighing what I
assume to be the motivations of the actors_

Well, that's precisely the wrong thing to do.

The right thing to do, when you don't have enough evidence, is to say "I don't
know". You can then go on to say "I think the preponderance of evidence is on
one side or another", but you certainly shouldn't go round _believing_ things.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

~~~
blendergasket
I don't have all the evidence. I weigh the evidence I have, and believe the
preponderance of evidence is on one side or another. You call it think, but
really there's no difference between that and believing. If you think so
you're living a lie that perpetuates this masquerade of believing we're
partaking in science and in effect elevates this swinish political discussion
to the level of science.

