tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post2034605505988062180..comments2023-06-09T05:51:20.174-07:00Comments on Climate Consensarian: The Difference Beteween Fraud and Farce, RefluxBrandon R. Gateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comBlogger287125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-71037525244704924762016-04-04T12:55:01.208-07:002016-04-04T12:55:01.208-07:00BBD,
There's a word for that...
... confused...BBD,<br /><br /><i>There's a word for that...</i><br /><br />... confused? :-P<br /><br /><i>You are too good for this Earth, Mr G. An example to us all.</i><br /><br />Aw shucks, thank you. I now feel obliged to live up to it, damn you.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-17567661492438740002016-04-04T06:19:10.262-07:002016-04-04T06:19:10.262-07:00his main agenda is to convince himself of what he ...<i> his main agenda is to convince himself of what he wants to believe instead of seeing that the mainstream science is the far better explanation.</i><br /><br />There's a word for that...<br /><br />You are too good for this Earth, Mr G. An example to us all.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-57803019621948642282016-04-03T18:49:29.823-07:002016-04-03T18:49:29.823-07:00RobH,
Thanks, that makes sense. I had also consi...RobH,<br /><br />Thanks, that makes sense. I had also considered the possibility that asking both questions at the same time might introduce a bias.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-27457432707529797472016-04-03T18:41:13.945-07:002016-04-03T18:41:13.945-07:00As I so often do, I have an urge to speak in his d...As I so often do, I have an urge to speak in his defense. Partially because I like him, partially because I normally try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But I just can't look the other way on this one.<br /><br />After having been through several cycles with him, and watching you and RobH go through almost the exact same arguments with him, I'm finding it difficult to not conclude that his main agenda is to convince himself of what he wants to believe instead of seeing that the mainstream science is the far better explanation.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-4439813045041032842016-04-03T12:37:25.412-07:002016-04-03T12:37:25.412-07:00"Only Nixon could go to China."
~Vulcan ..."Only Nixon could go to China."<br />~Vulcan Proverb<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />Point taken. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-33907995826201138272016-04-03T07:38:16.170-07:002016-04-03T07:38:16.170-07:00What's really quite evil is his habit of askin...<i>What's really quite evil is his habit of asking for that which he already knows is all but impossible to provide.</i><br /><br />It's bad faith, and it pisses me off too. When people use cheap tricks like that to create the (false) impression that their argument has merit and yours does not, you know for certain that this is not simply about 'truth-seeking'. It's about peddling an agenda. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-71638914109585107242016-04-03T07:20:13.766-07:002016-04-03T07:20:13.766-07:00I have to add... I actually find these sorts of co...I have to add... I actually find these sorts of conversations tragically fascinating. Chic is clearly capable of grasping all these concepts. All the information required to answer his burning questions are very easily accessible. He realizes the body of evidence supporting AGW is overwhelmingly large and broadly consistent.<br /><br />But he... still... can't... accept it. <br /><br />And no, I don't think the cognitive dissonance and ideological biases cut both ways. I accept both that I don't understand every thing about this subject, and that the broad scientific community does have a firm grasp on this issue. I'm not making any claims that are tantamount to a complete failure of our modern understanding of science. Chic is.<br /><br />I find people like Chic deeply fascinating. RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-58452861657309710512016-04-03T07:07:19.042-07:002016-04-03T07:07:19.042-07:00I think is they key question relative to Chic: Is...I think is they key question relative to Chic: <i> Is there any possibility that the atmosphere works differently than your current understanding?</i><br /><br />Yes, it is possible but extremely unlikely.<br /><br />Again, a different mechanism would mean you have to go back and rework an extraordinary number of situation in which the current model does work. You have to rewrite the PETM. You have rewrite snowball earth. You have to rewrite glacial-interglacials. You'd have to rewrite many of the human fingerprints for global warming that we see today. Polar amplification. Rising tropopause. Nights warming faster than days. Tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling.<br /><br />RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-71083239322364873542016-04-03T06:59:42.983-07:002016-04-03T06:59:42.983-07:00Friendly reminder that I'm still interested in...<i>Friendly reminder that I'm still interested in any insight you have as to why the authors were not also solicited for their personal expert opinions on AGW irrespective of the explicit or implicit endorsement level of their papers.</i><br /><br />I think it was just outside the scope of the research since we were trying to established the level of consensus in the published literature.RobHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953061681658403047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-55726985522620810362016-04-03T06:10:53.655-07:002016-04-03T06:10:53.655-07:00What's really quite evil is his habit of askin...What's really quite evil is his habit of asking for that which he already knows is all but impossible to provide.<br /><br />I can already hear him asking me whether I ever do the same. To which I will have to answer, "yes".Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-48532550132207584602016-04-03T05:57:22.038-07:002016-04-03T05:57:22.038-07:00BBD, PS:
People aren't going to read whole th...BBD, PS:<br /><br /><i>People aren't going to read whole threads, so they might not see that upthread you made more cogent points ... they'll zero in on the pithy facile responses ...</i><br /><br />Here of course, I am talking about myself. I really haven't read this thread 10 times, more like I skimmed it once. But you knew that already. :-)Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-91910709677118407272016-04-03T05:40:08.469-07:002016-04-03T05:40:08.469-07:00BBD,
I'm not really as cross as I sound, but ...BBD,<br /><br /><i>I'm not really as cross as I sound, but I am a wee bit irritated about this.</i><br /><br />It's possible that I'm trying to make too large an argument in too few words. It's also possible I don't have a very good point. I've been known to pick nits to excess, which by the way gave me some pause when I set out to write this godforsaken article in the first place.<br /><br />One small tiny point was tactics. People aren't going to read whole threads, so they might not see that upthread you made more cogent points ... they'll zero in on the pithy facile responses, e.g, "The problem is physics." Don't get me wrong, I laughed when I read it because I've used similar lines a lot. I'm arguing something here that I fight with myself on all the time.<br /><br />The big thing I know I'm not getting across well is the question of why is it you and I generally trust the primary literature on climate science and Chic doesn't? We say consensus, he says bandwagon fallacy. We say expert opinion, he says appeal to authority. We say consilience of evidence, he asks if we've personally worked out all the maths and/or replicated their results ... like, you know, that's what everybody does for any science.<br /><br />You say, "FFS, why do I even bother?" I totally get that. If I may direct that at the one with whom we're both frustrated, it's like trying to catch an eel after having just pulled one's hands out of a vat of lard. Ah, here we go:<br /><br />"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~Albert Einstein<br /><br />I probably should have made it clear from the get-go that I didn't have any good answer for how to resolve problem I was calling out ... namely that the conversation has gone full circle at least twice on this thread and elebenty-bazillion times on others, and that I'm about at my wit's end because of it.<br /><br />As ever, one option is for me to simply beg off, and let you guys proceed on course as you will whilst I rummage around in my toolbox for my softer touch and/or a different topic.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-44212287702370278312016-04-03T03:00:05.754-07:002016-04-03T03:00:05.754-07:00And yet again CB dodges the question.
I call foul...And <b>yet again</b> CB dodges the question.<br /><br />I call foul. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-61098506814134132662016-04-03T02:58:16.325-07:002016-04-03T02:58:16.325-07:00Now imagine that either one of you had instead mad...<i>Now imagine that either one of you had instead made a better argument.</i><br /><br />But I *did* make a better argument. I isolated Chic's fundamental error and forced him to confront it. Unable to proceed, he accused me of 'setting him up' and 'twisting' his words, which is frankly risible but he is in denial, so par for the course. <br /><br />Then - <i>then</i>, you start playing 'devil's advocate', wittering about confirmation bias and telling me I didn't argue my position well. <br /><br />FFS.<br /><br />Sometimes I wonder why I bother. <br /><br />I'm not really as cross as I sound, but I am a wee bit irritated about this. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-84461410270608153572016-04-03T02:51:36.175-07:002016-04-03T02:51:36.175-07:00Chic,
Would you agree that it makes a difference ...Chic,<br /><br /><i>Would you agree that it makes a difference what conclusion you would draw depending on if the system was adiabatic or not?</i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br /><i>I'll play this game over on the gas in a closed system post. Not here, the scroll is too long.</i><br /><br />Good plan.<br />Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-41007106290786438862016-04-03T02:48:09.299-07:002016-04-03T02:48:09.299-07:00BBD,
Don't know how you find the time, Brando...BBD,<br /><br /><i>Don't know how you find the time, Brandon :-)</i><br /><br />Being a gentleman of leisure helps somewhat. There are only so many hours in a day however.<br /><br /><i>Be sure to use a long spoon, when you sup with some of your new mates ;-)</i><br /><br />Or long chopsticks perhaps?<br /><br />"Only Nixon could go to China."<br />~Vulcan Proverb<br /><br /><i>Physics doesn't do agnosticsim. You know it's a hard mistress :-)</i><br /><br />I thought that was the Moon.<br /><br />I don't disbelieve that lichurchur doesn't have a pretty good handle on it. As I explain in another post, my agnosticism on snowball earth is due more to me not having a good handle on lichurchur. I've often been burned not heeding my discipline on that score.<br /><br /><i>Even if we synthesise these results, you still need a hell of a lot of CO2 to break out of the albedo-locked icehouse and CO2 forcing remains the most plausible key.</i><br /><br />So noted, thanks for the refs. When I'm feeling less swamped I'll post them to the references page and might actually read them to boot. :-)Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-40364867081640475752016-04-02T21:10:30.413-07:002016-04-02T21:10:30.413-07:00BBD,
Smells like false balance :-)
I don't d...BBD,<br /><br /><i>Smells like false balance :-)</i><br /><br />I don't disagree, and I rather expected you to say so.<br /><br /><i>Review the spread of arguments I have made here.</i><br /><br />Geez, what a taskmaster. I've read them all ten times already. You already know I agree with you. That's not what this is about.<br /><br /><i>Where is the the evidence for confirmation bias on my part?</i><br /><br />That I don't believe you to be a robot. I can't prove that either.<br /><br />***<br /><br />I'm running a Devil's Advocate gambit here. Suppose, implausibly, a neutral third-party observer knowing nothing about AGW read only the following and nothing else:<br /><br /><i>Chic: The problem is you. <br /><br />BBD: No, the problem is physics.</i><br /><br />Now imagine that either one of you had instead made a better argument.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-49357219944966060612016-04-02T20:32:55.842-07:002016-04-02T20:32:55.842-07:00"Will you look at the data and measurements i...<i>"Will you look at the data and measurements if provided?"</i><br /><br />Rob, Brandon is probably spot on. I will definitely look closely at this because it is in my "area" of interest. The AEE is going to be found by a complex integration not unlike what goes into a climate model. If someone has zeroed in on the AEE and can show how it moves relative to changes in CO2 and water vapor, cool!<br /><br /><i>"When I do show the data and the measurements and all the other elements that make up the basis of climate change, 'skeptics' just dismiss them. ...When an issue like this challenges some critical element of someone's individual worldview, the mind desperately needs to make it go away. The cognitive dissonance is incredibly uncomfortable."</i><br /><br />Do you hold yourself to the same standard?<br /><br />BTW, I responded to your comment about the radiative effect of water vapor above the cloud level on Brandon's MODTRAN post. This thread is so long, is takes forever to load and I trouble finding the comments to respond to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-49718578357858593092016-04-02T20:07:03.912-07:002016-04-02T20:07:03.912-07:00Brandon,
While we discussed the gravito-thermal e...Brandon,<br /><br />While we discussed the gravito-thermal effect we had much discussion about what the constraints on the system were. Would you agree that it makes a difference what conclusion you would draw depending on if the system was adiabatic or not?<br /><br />I'll play this game over on the gas in a closed system post. Not here, the scroll is too long. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-20924727715491668972016-04-02T19:54:46.665-07:002016-04-02T19:54:46.665-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-87497013280344210392016-04-02T17:13:51.542-07:002016-04-02T17:13:51.542-07:00RobH,
Will you look at the data and measurements ...RobH,<br /><br /><i>Will you look at the data and measurements if provided?</i><br /><br />Based on my own numerous prior experiences with Chic, I believe that he would. Also based on the same prior experiences with him, it's highly likely he will also declare them inconclusive.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-8729432156557961822016-04-02T17:08:23.392-07:002016-04-02T17:08:23.392-07:00Brandon G
Consider the possibility that any suffi...Brandon G<br /><br /><i>Consider the possibility that any sufficiently motivated person can find a way to support any argument, no matter how *seemingly* weak by appealing to select supporting evidence or endlessly asserting there are no *seemingly* plausible alternatives. Especially on problems with the scale, scope and complexity of a planet-sized physical system.<br /><br />Zero-sum argument, my friends. Confirmation bias is a right bitch, and any "truly" agnostic, objective, disinterested third-party observer would be compelled to consider that both of you are suffering from it.</i><br /><br />Smells like false balance :-) Review the spread of arguments I have made here. Where is the the evidence for confirmation bias on my part? <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-83645955124548307382016-04-02T16:55:25.910-07:002016-04-02T16:55:25.910-07:00Chic,
Why don't you start over and define the...Chic,<br /><br /><i>Why don't you start over and define the system in such a way that I can't insert any "dodges."</i><br /><br />Consider the possibility that any sufficiently motivated person can find a way to dodge any argument, no matter how *seemingly* robust by appealing to select contrary evidence or endlessly raising *seemingly* plausible alternatives. Especially on problems with the scale, scope and complexity of a planet-sized physical system.<br /><br />BBD,<br /><br /><i>No, the problem is physics.</i><br /><br />Consider the possibility that any sufficiently motivated person can find a way to support any argument, no matter how *seemingly* weak by appealing to select supporting evidence or endlessly asserting there are no *seemingly* plausible alternatives. Especially on problems with the scale, scope and complexity of a planet-sized physical system.<br /><br />Zero-sum argument, my friends. Confirmation bias is a right bitch, and any "truly" agnostic, objective, disinterested third-party observer would be compelled to consider that both of you are suffering from it.<br /><br />You're at an impasse. I suggest trying to find a mutually acceptable way to break it if you are to continue and have any hope of engaging in a meaningful learning exchange.<br /><br />Note that I'm NOT *demanding* that you do so. Partisan polemic, and nitwit-bashing is something I routinely engage in myself, and I have no desire to prohibit others from doing it here.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-7531098743659416062016-04-02T16:18:03.765-07:002016-04-02T16:18:03.765-07:00RobH,
I very clearly remember everyone wanting to...RobH,<br /><br /><i>I very clearly remember everyone wanting to take a very conservative approach.</i><br /><br />That was my impression coming into this, and in the past have defended C13 on that basis. My position on that has not changed.<br /><br /><i>My comment about almost identical results was relative to the final ratio of "minimizing" papers vs "endorsement" papers.</i><br /><br />Ah, hence the necessity of leaving out the "no position/uncertain" papers. Yes, I have noted previously that one argument for robustness is that very similarity, which I had also tested for myself by grabbing the data and crunching my own numbers.<br /><br /><i>Anyone who takes the time to try rating papers (which can be done on the SkS website, exactly the way we did it) will understand the challenge one faces.</i><br /><br />Duly (and previously) appreciated. <br /><br /><i>There is a lot of fuzziness between categories.</i><br /><br />Yes. I suggest in the head post ways to have reduced that fuzziness. I suggest here that SkS made the task more difficult than it need have been since such fuzziness tends to increase, not decrease, the space for differing subjective interpretation and evaluation by all individual participants. IOW, the exact opposite of what I believe to be good survey design.<br /><br /><i>During the whole process we had to do around 30,000 ratings of those 12,000 papers. Most of that work was done by a group of maybe 10 people.</i><br /><br />And I continue to have the utmost respect and appreciation for that phenomenal effort. I had no intent or desire to diminish your efforts by writing this post, only to explain why I cannot any longer stand in defence of C13 based on my opinions of its flaws, as well as to describe what approaches and methods I would be able to stand by with confidence. For whatever it's worth, I intended this article to be a constructive critique, not just another SkS/C13 bash fest.<br /><br />Friendly reminder that I'm still interested in any insight you have as to why the authors were not also solicited for their personal expert opinions on AGW irrespective of the explicit or implicit endorsement level of their papers. I continue to ask because I believe having additionally done so would have added a corroborating data point, potentially allowing a much stronger case to be made for an AGW consensus for almost any conceivable tightly specified AGW definition.<br /><br />Thank you for all your other responses and contributions here to date.<br /><br />Best regards.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2219566526148503794.post-16833502966196472592016-04-02T16:07:20.054-07:002016-04-02T16:07:20.054-07:00Brandon G
An outgassing is one possibility. But I...Brandon G<br /><br /><i>An outgassing is one possibility. But I've long been loath to stand pat on that answer without being able to confidently hold forth on why I would discount other possibilities, if not rule them out entirely. At present, my most honest answer is the agnostic one. I'm ok at explaining the past million years to myself (and hopefully others) but much past that the system becomes sufficiently different from present that can't speak with any confidence at all.</i><br /><br />Physics doesn't do agnosticsim. You know it's a hard mistress :-)<br /><br />If you've got a Snowball Earth (SE) you have an albedo-locked icehouse. The potential keys for a breakout are:<br /><br />- Increase in solar output<br /><br />- Reduction in planetary albedo<br /><br />- Increased RF from atmospheric GHGs<br /><br />As far as I know, there is no evidence that G-type stars are significantly variable (enough to terminate an SE; we can check this with ATTP). The gradual increase in solar forcing from from stellar evolution is a marginal radiative term in the potential mechanisms for terminating SEs. Much more seems to be required. <br /><br />Reduction in albedo has been considered, eg. <a href="http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~abbot/files/PAPERS/abbot-pierrehumbert-10.pdf" rel="nofollow">Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010)</a> <i>Mudball: Surface dust and Snowball Earth deglaciation.</i> In this study, the CO2 trigger for deglaciation is estimated to be between pCO2 = 0.01–0.1 bar (10,000 ppm - 100,000 ppm CO2).<br /><br />Another take on albedo would be clouds, also considered <a href="http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~dkoll/PAPERS/abbot-et-al-12b.pdf" rel="nofollow">(Abbot et al. 2012)</a>. Here, the CO2 trigger for deglaciation is estimated at ~100,000ppm. <br /><br />Even if we synthesise these results, you still need a hell of a lot of CO2 to break out of the albedo-locked icehouse and CO2 forcing remains the most plausible key. <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.com