Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

[Brad Sallows]

Science is all about doing repeatable experiments in an attempt to prove that a theory is wrong.

Not entirely, or even mostly. Experiments look for things theories predict. If a prediction is wrong/contradicted, the theory is wrong or incomplete (requires modification).

For example, suppose a climate model (which is not a theory, but its internal workings are at least based on some bits of theories) predicts a future value of some defined measure (eg. a temperature). The only practical experiment is a natural one - to wait and measure (and it can't be repeated, except as a set of natural experiments - start with many predicted values for different locations and different times and later measure them all). If a measure doesn't match a prediction, the model is wrong, and has to be modified.

Predictions will often have ranges of uncertainty, and computer model outputs will with very, very few exceptions have ranges of uncertainty, so failure to match exactly is not disproof. The go-to excuse when a measure fails to confirm a prediction closely is that the measure falls within the range of uncertainty of the prediction (which is legitimate, if it does).
[Snark begins here.]

Climate models have a remarkably consistent history of predicting temperatures higher than what are subsequently measured, with large uncertainties. The modellers and theorists seem to be having difficulty adjusting theories and models so that measured values tend to fall on either side of predicted values, with narrower ranges of uncertainty. The models aren't comprehensive, and the masses of data that people should be gathering to put into them, no-one seems very interested in gathering to the point of doing all that hard work themselves. Instead, they excitedly jump into the policy arena, and here we are.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The models aren't comprehensive, and the masses of data that people should be gathering to put into them, no-one seems very interested in gathering to the point of doing all that hard work themselves. Instead, they excitedly jump into the policy arena, and here we are.

We must be more Spock, less McCoy

 

[Altair]

Not entirely, or even mostly. Experiments look for things theories predict. If a prediction is wrong/contradicted, the theory is wrong or incomplete (requires modification).

For example, suppose a climate model (which is not a theory, but its internal workings are at least based on some bits of theories) predicts a future value of some defined measure (eg. a temperature). The only practical experiment is a natural one - to wait and measure (and it can't be repeated, except as a set of natural experiments - start with many predicted values for different locations and different times and later measure them all). If a measure doesn't match a prediction, the model is wrong, and has to be modified.

Predictions will often have ranges of uncertainty, and computer model outputs will with very, very few exceptions have ranges of uncertainty, so failure to match exactly is not disproof. The go-to excuse when a measure fails to confirm a prediction closely is that the measure falls within the range of uncertainty of the prediction (which is legitimate, if it does).
[Snark begins here.]

Climate models have a remarkably consistent history of predicting temperatures higher than what are subsequently measured, with large uncertainties. The modellers and theorists seem to be having difficulty adjusting theories and models so that measured values tend to fall on either side of predicted values, with narrower ranges of uncertainty. The models aren't comprehensive, and the masses of data that people should be gathering to put into them, no-one seems very interested in gathering to the point of doing all that hard work themselves. Instead, they excitedly jump into the policy arena, and here we are.

It's an issue of time.

If the time it takes to perfect the modeling cuts into the time needed to address the issue then no matter how perfect the modeling is it's all for not.

 

[Brad Sallows]

f the time it takes to perfect the modeling cuts into the time needed to address the issue

If a model is insufficiently accurate, it neither proves nor disproves that an issue exists which needs to be addressed.

 

[Altair]

If a model is insufficiently accurate, it neither proves nor disproves that an issue exists which needs to be addressed.

So that's it then. You view the modelling as insufficiently accurate, thus in your opinion it cannot prove or disprove whether human activity is leading to global temperature rising.

What is your conclusion? Do nothing then?

* Not at all agreeing with your opinion here in the least.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What is your conclusion? Do nothing then?

If all we have is crude untrustworthy oversimplified models based on sparse data and assumed fudge-factor parameters, yes. There are other problems to be confronted, and climate alarmism is probably sucking too much time and effort away from them.

There is a compelling reason for mitigating emissions (which I first read expressed by JE Pournelle): we are effectively conducting an uncontrolled experiment by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

A less compelling reason, which requires the assumption that warming is a net negative (or we should welcome it), is empirical: we are able to observe gradual warming over the past couple of hundred years.

Neither of those necessarily supports courses of action which might precipitate severe economic contraction. Economic contraction reduces resources available to mitigate any kind of problem. Expenditure of resources mitigating climate change reduces resources available to mitigate any other kind problems. The consequences of energy crises and increased costs will fall hardest on the people least able to bear them.

 

[Altair]

If all we have is crude untrustworthy oversimplified models based on sparse data and assumed fudge-factor parameters, yes. There are other problems to be confronted, and climate alarmism is probably sucking too much time and effort away from them.

There is a compelling reason for mitigating emissions (which I first read expressed by JE Pournelle): we are effectively conducting an uncontrolled experiment by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

A less compelling reason, which requires the assumption that warming is a net negative (or we should welcome it), is empirical: we are able to observe gradual warming over the past couple of hundred years.

Neither of those necessarily supports courses of action which might precipitate severe economic contraction. Economic contraction reduces resources available to mitigate any kind of problem. Expenditure of resources mitigating climate change reduces resources available to mitigate any other kind problems. The consequences of energy crises and increased costs will fall hardest on the people least able to bear them.

This is a perfect summary of the situation we find ourselves in and a piss poor response as to what we should do about the situation we find ourselves in.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Without a great deal of punitive economic pressure, the US has managed to reduce emissions. (Set aside the fact the current administration is determined to throw sand in the gears as being a temporary failure.) Why is that a piss poor response?

 

[Remius]

This is a perfect summary of the situation we find ourselves in and a piss poor response as to what we should do about the situation we find ourselves in.

People don’t care about the environment when it affects their wallet. Or ability to eat and pay for the necessities of life.

 

[Good2Golf]

People don’t care about the environment when it affects their wallet. Or ability to eat and pay for the necessities of life.

China certainly doesn’t…

 

[Altair]

Without a great deal of punitive economic pressure, the US has managed to reduce emissions. (Set aside the fact the current administration is determined to throw sand in the gears as being a temporary failure.) Why is that a piss poor response?

So you suggest we do reduce emissions?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Environmental degradation appears to follow a U-shaped curve: increases as a society develops, then decreases as a society becomes more prosperous. Hypothesis: well-off people, having fewer basic worries, start to care about their water and air quality. Obvious conclusion: promote prosperity, and at all costs avoid reducing it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So you suggest we do reduce emissions?

For value of "we" equal to "total global", yes.

 

[Remius]

China certainly doesn’t…

The good thing is that China is going to face a reckoning at some point as it’s middle class starts to grow. But yes.

 

[Altair]

For value of "we" equal to "total global", yes.

Why? You said climate projections cannot be proven or disproven, why cut emissions for something you say may not exist?

 

[Good2Golf]

The good thing is that China is going to face a reckoning at some point as it’s middle class starts to grow. But yes.

Agree, but may be significantly after citizens of unicorn-land see a disproportionate and material drop in quality of life….AND get the big cloud of CO2 from mainland China parking itself overhead as well…

 

[Brad Sallows]

You're a real piece of work. I wrote that an inaccurate model can't prove or disprove anything. (Strictly speaking, even an accurate model isn't proof or disproof; it's an indicator of where to look for evidence.)

We can measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations directly and understand whether they are increasing or decreasing. Although I suspect a warmer climate is a more hospitable one, there's nothing wrong with not pushing it. Since carbon sequestration requires a lot of energy, the easier path is to throttle back on emissions.

 

[Altair]

You're a real piece of work. I wrote that an inaccurate model can't prove or disprove anything. (Strictly speaking, even an accurate model isn't proof or disproof; it's an indicator of where to look for evidence.)

We can measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations directly and understand whether they are increasing or decreasing. Although I suspect a warmer climate is a more hospitable one, there's nothing wrong with not pushing it. Since carbon sequestration requires a lot of energy, the easier path is to throttle back on emissions.

I don't know why it takes so much mental gymnastics to get to this simple point.

It doesn't matter that my reasons for ending up at this point are different than your reasons for ending up at this point, so long as we agree on that point. Now we disagree on the best practice for throttling back emissions, but at least being on the same page that its something that must be done leaves room for discussion.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don't know why it takes so much mental gymnastics to get to this simple point.

We never left it, unless you're confused by my divergence into the discussion of whether a warmer climate is necessarily bad. The discussion has otherwise always been about methods.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

All this angst for "we should pollute less?". Where's G2G and a slow golf clap meme???