
Panel’s Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to Come - platz
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/science/earth/panels-warning-on-climate-risk-worst-is-yet-to-come.html
======
fleitz
In most sciences when the hypothesis fails to account for what happened one
decides the theory is bunk and moves on.

In GW/CC (whatever they are calling it this week) the hypothesis is a forgone
conclusion and you merely search for evidence to support it.

So since we're having a 'warming hiatus' one concludes that the worst is yet
to come, because the alternative is the model has not been validated by
evidence and one should not make predictions based on an unvalidated (or more
correctly invalidated) model.

[http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-
mi...](http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-
heat-1.14525)

~~~
crazy1van
Yeah, I think we've lost touch with the whole scientific method on climate
change. Propose a theory. Test the theory. Revise the theory. Repeat and
repeat as we gain a more accurate understanding of our world.

Climate is so complicated. Of we're going to get things wrong. The trick is
revising our theories in light of recent discoveries. Unfortunately, many
people have a lot of money and clout invested in The One True Theory that they
don't want to admit any mistakes at all. That is closer to religion than
science.

~~~
jjoonathan
> _I think we 've lost touch with the whole scientific method on climate
> change. Propose a theory. Test the theory. Revise the theory. Repeat and
> repeat as we gain a more accurate understanding of our world._

I think you've never been in touch with the scientific method on climate
change because your "how it should work" outline is exactly how I saw it go
down in the literature.

Theory: Earth is warming ~1K/century, we have a bunch of models to project
from here, most of which are bad news.

Observation: Temperature dips below predictions on enough models over enough
time to be statistically significant.

Theory: Some negative feedback mechanism kicked in to reverse our forcing on
the climate. We no longer have to worry about the previous trends.

Observation: Radiative flux measurements say that the difference in energy
going in and going out of the planet is still positive. Whatever the negative
feedback mechanism is, the energy is staying on Earth, so thermodynamics says
the feedback mechanism must eventually fail.

Theory: The heat is being stored in the ocean. It's the biggest heat sink
around.

Observation: If we adjust the models to use observed ocean currents instead of
predicted average currents, we find that that the refined models reflect the
observed heat storage.

Theory: Parts of the ocean are heating up, as seen in the models.

Observation: Yep, we went and measured them, and they're heating up. Corrected
to reflect this evidence, the models still point to upward trends.

\----------------

> _Climate is so complicated. Of we 're going to get things wrong. The trick
> is revising our theories in light of recent discoveries._

Good thing that's exactly what happens. The real trick is in convincing people
like you that it has happened. Clearly it's not enough to

1\. Publish cross-referenced short summaries alongside detailed methodologies
(papers) in a system where people compete to prove each other wrong

2\. Provide high-level reviews to connect the dots established by #1 (the IPCC
reports)

3\. Have the thousands of scientists doing #1 sign off on #2 so that you know
it's not misrepresenting how their #1 results fit into the big picture

\----------------

> _many people have a lot of money and clout invested in The One True Theory
> that they don 't want to admit any mistakes at all._

If someone can prove an alternative there is far more money and clout in it
for _them_ than if they had toed the line. There _is_ a large social penalty
for false alarms, but that's because there is a political party, monied
industry, and media apparatus poised to turn a false alarm into actual
counterproductive action.

How can the debate be considered fair if one side is censored? Easy: "false
alarm" hypotheses are only ever stated in the context of research results that
prove them wrong (i.e. as null hypotheses). They still get proposed,
inspected, and analyzed, just not in a way that allows political forces to
trivially misrepresent them. Research that could disprove the whole GW/CC
theory gets done in the context of investigating puzzling nuances of GW/CC. So
far, the overall theory has endured, even though the details have evolved to
account for new information.

Consider a debugging analogy. Suppose you're convinced that you have a
compiler bug, but you know that you'll get laughed at if you say so out loud.
The social stigma is never an issue because you can do reductions without
getting laughed at. If it really is a compiler bug, you will eventually have a
"smoking gun" test case to prove it. If not, no harm done. Your social status
hasn't suffered because you can claim you never really believed it was a
compiler bug anyway.

\----------------

> _That is closer to religion than science._

How many actual research papers have you read on this subject? Because if you
think climate scientists aren't following the scientific process I suspect the
answer is 0.

Start here:

[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-o...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-
ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-2/)

(notice how the discussion revolves around primary literature with links at
the bottom)

\----------------

One choice quote from the link above:

> And a reminder: The warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was
> almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade, see Fig. 4 here), and
> (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we
> noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named
> “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to
> be. - See more at:
> [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-o...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-
> ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-
> page-2/#sthash.PbuJik87.dpuf)

~~~
glenra
> _There is a large social penalty for false alarms_

There is absolutely no social penalty for false alarms of that sort - not so
long as the alarm goes in the right direction. Remember Schneider's "we have
to offer up scary scenarios" quote - coming up with alarms (that might be
false) is essentially part of the _job_ of environmental activists, even ones
who choose to do science for a living. If there _were_ a large social penalty
for false alarms, Ehrlich wouldn't have remained credible after all his past
prediction failures. (predictions such as: _" The battle to feed all of
humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to
death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."_)

The idea that our "missing heat" is hiding in the deep ocean is still a
speculative hypothesis. It _could_ potentially be correct but it's hard to be
sure because the data coverage wasn't there until recently. The trend one gets
depends on how one does the reanalysis.

Curry discusses the question here: [http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-
heat-content-uncerta...](http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-heat-content-
uncertainties/)

Pointing in particular at this paper (which I've only skimmed so far):
[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_fina...](http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf)

------
steve19
Apparently the warming is going to give us bad tempers [0] ...

"In an authoritative report due out Monday a United Nations climate panel for
the first time is connecting hotter global temperatures to hotter global
tempers. Top scientists are saying that climate change will complicate and
worsen existing global security problems, such as civil wars, strife between
nations and refugees ... retired U.S. Navy Adm. David Titley, now a
Pennsylvania State University professor of meteorology, wrote in an email.
“The Arab Spring and Syria are two recent examples.”

They sully the real science with this kind of nonsense.

[0] [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/warmer-
temperature...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/warmer-temperatures-
can-lead-warmer-tempers-un-report-to-say/article17729866/)

~~~
pfraze
Actually, no. One of the big events leading up to Egypt's revolution was a
grain shortage brought on by a heat wave and bout of fires in Russia [1].

1\. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/08...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080502470.html)

~~~
steve19
The webpage you cite does not support your argument that Climate Change caused
the Egyptian population to rise up against their oppressive/corrupt
dictatorship. It simply states that Russia had fires destroying wheat and
Egypt was an importer.

Food price inflation[0] is cited by Wikipedia as one of the causes (with just
a single link). There are pages and pages of other much more important
reasons[1]

Food price inflation is not necessarily connected to Global Warming/Climate
Change.

The 2007/2008 World Food Crisis, which caused violence in Egypt[2],
significantly raised food prices (which stayed high after the rapid rise). A
major cause, according to the World Bank, was biofuels [2] which raised food
prices by up to 75%.

Its easy to claim that X was the spark that made Y happen. All you need to
show that X had some minuscule effect and people will readily agree, ignoring
the big picture.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#cit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#cite_note-
tna-3) [1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#cit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#cite_note-
tna-3) [2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis#Egypt)
[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis#cite_note-
WorldBank_07_08-50)

~~~
pfraze
Take it as you will. Whether it's fair to say "Climate Change caused Egypt's
revolution," I don't know. But if you accept that Climate Change can
destabilize the food supply, and that a destabilized food supply caused the
revolution, then the quote claim is not really nonsensical.

And don't get me started on biofuels!

------
spikels
I understand and believe in the science - so why does this article trigger my
suspicion I am being sold something. I know balance has gotten a bad name with
because the crackpots in the global warming denier camp but this just seems so
one-sided that it strains credibility.

~~~
naturalethic
To even use the word "denier" strains your credibility as a "scientist"

------
duncan_bayne
Could someone please explain to me how the IPCC can be calling for urgent
action when their models are looking increasingly busted?

[http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and-implications-
of...](http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and-implications-of..).

I can see three main possibilities:

\- their models aren't busted (Judith Curry is wrong, as are those whom she
cites)

\- their models are busted, and that increases the risk (i.e. risk increases
as a result of forecasting being essentially impossible)

\- their models are busted, and they're doubling down on a bad bet for
political reasons

------
jamhan
The other side: [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/27/un-
climate-a...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/27/un-climate-
author-withdraws-damn-obvious-warmer-te/)

~~~
jamhan
Wow, downvoted for simply posting a report on a dissenting opinion from a
former IPCC review panel member. WTF?

~~~
platz
Downvotes seem to be as much emotionally driven as anything else. Also, there
is the perpetual confusion between "I do not agree" and "This is not
constructive"

~~~
mikeash
I downvoted simply because it's a crappy article from a crappy "newspaper"
that doesn't really add to the conversation.

I mean, look at this silliness:

"It is pretty damn obvious there are positive impacts of climate change, even
though we are not always allowed to talk about them."

This quote comes _right after talking about them_ , so what's this idea that
they're not allowed to? Ridiculous. It's a political editorial, and not even a
good one, masquerading as a news article.

------
dmk23
This alarmism is getting really ridiculous.

Just 5 years ago, Al Gore claimed North Pole ice cap will be gone by now and
instead we just had a record cold winter.

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/16/editorial-
al...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/16/editorial-al-gore-
soothsayer/)

~~~
fleitz
The less the sky falls the more imminent the danger. Ask any christian, or
other believer in an apocalyptic cult, the end times have never been closer.

From the wiki page on doomsday cults: "Referring to his study, Festinger and
later other researchers have attempted to explain the commitment of members to
their associated doomsday cult, even after the prophecies of their leader have
turned out to be false. Festinger explained this phenomenon as part of a
coping mechanism called dissonance reduction, a form of rationalization.
Members often dedicate themselves with renewed vigor to the group's cause
after a failed prophecy, and rationalize with explanations such as a belief
that their actions forestalled the disaster, or a belief in the leader when
the date for disaster is postponed."

------
ethana
On the contrary, what if George Carlin was right and mother nature just needed
human to make plastic?

------
mikeash
Sweet Jesus the HN comments here are scary. I'd have hoped for some sort of
sense here.

I really should get over my idea that comments here are any better than any
other internet cesspool....

~~~
rjdagost
Apparently your idea of "better" means "comments that I agree with"?

~~~
epistasis
There was a time when HN was less political and more interested in fact.

Can you imagine any other context where a political editorial would be
accepted as fact in a discussion on science? Some people have such little
shame.

------
zabomber
Wtf is their a linked item on HN to a payed news site?

------
HoochTHX
Fear the mind killer, used too often...

------
bsbechtel
Why do we believe climate scientists when they can't even predict the weather
10 days out? Yes, weather doesn't equal climate, but climate is weather in
aggregate. That means we should be able to predict short-term, local weather
events more accurately before we even begin to start predicting long-term,
global weather phenomenons. If our short-term weather models are so pitifully
inaccurate, what on earth makes us believe our climate models predicting what
will happen 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now are anywhere close to being correct?

~~~
badsock
In many systems you can predict larger scale events (when the pot of water
will boil) despite being unable to predict smaller scale ones (turbulent flow
inside the pot).

~~~
bsbechtel
Your pot of boiling water prediction is based on past experience, not modeling
of the smaller scale system. Climate science is akin to modeling turbulent
flow inside the pot to predict when the pot will boil.

~~~
badsock
All modelling is based on past experience. The usefulness of a model is the
degree to which you can abstract it from that experience.

In the case of the pot of water, you can observe the energy input into the
system and combine that with some very generic, simple, and reliable physical
models to determine when it will boil.

I'm not claiming that climate science is that simple, of course. My point is
that some systems are more easily predicted at a larger scale than a smaller
one.

