here comes the next ice age

[DonaldD]

My point was rather about scientific illiteracy masquerading as reasoned positions.

Hint: the misunderstanding that an average calculated down to significant digits not available to each individual measuring device is a problem; or the misunderstanding about what "the consensus" actually means, in the face of having the value/meaning explained once more on this thread; or the mistaken belief that the satellite temperature products don't show significantly similar warming trends as the surface temperature products; or the mistaken belief that the temperature products that exclude the polar regions show significantly different warming than those products that include the polar regions using smaller sample-set density and extrapolation.

[TheDeamon]

or the mistaken belief that the temperature products that exclude the polar regions show significantly different warming than those products that include the polar regions using smaller sample-set density and extrapolation.

You can get almost a full tenth of a degree(F) of warming out of that one simple change in certain years(such as this last year), IIRC. When a LOT of this argument is over very tiny fractions of a degree year over year, THAT is significant.

[rightleft22]

Rightleft if you can find any place where I said to ignore the science or the scientists I'll eat my shirt

We know for a fact that every scientist is wrong from time to time, we know for a fact that new discoveries sometimes turn entire fields on their heads.  We know for a fact that virtually all climate science, including all of its protective power is based on computer modelling, and that the limitations of that model are never accounted for in claims that the consensus has settled it.

I would never imply that you personally ignore science or aren’t rational in your arguments only that the statements you made about science and method are and have been used as an excuse to discount the findings of the scientific method and the embrace ones bias.

I’m not even sure what your stance on climate change is other then a healthy skepticism of the scientific method as it concerns the study of climate.

Regardless of climate change being a fact or fiction my bet is that in 20 to 50 years clean technology will be the driving force behind the economy.  Those that are stuck in the past will cry and push back, especially those who’s fortunes rely on keeping things the same, but it will happen.  That or we go Mad Max   

[Wayward Son]

Assuming others agree this this is the issue under dispute - even if they don't agree with TheDeamon's conclusions - then it seems to me the issue should be what potential plans are on the table. I could see a scenario where a solid plan was on the table but had short-term costs, whereas a more long-term plan was proposed by others who didn't want to see such a short-term hit. As long as both plans were feasible then it would be a matter of risk assessment of the odds of things getting terrible before the long-term plan came to fruition.

But I've scarcely ever seen a debate of that type. Why not?

Probably because we can't get past the "whether there is a real problem" debate.

There are a lot of potential plans on the table.  It's what has been discussed by international conferences since the first one.  It's just finding the one(s) that will address the problems without exasperating other problems that is the trick.

The Paris Accords were pretty good, in that they let each country set their own voluntary goals, instead of having them imposed from outside.  They didn't go far enough, but they were a good start and a foundation to work from.  But that was too far for Trump. 

Then there is David Brin's TWOTDA--Things We Ought To Do Anyway.  Like increasing mileage requirements, and reducing polluting power plants.  Which, again, was too far for Trump. :`(

So it's hard to discuss further measures when we can't even agree on the easy, obvious ones.

[Fenring]

So it's hard to discuss further measures when we can't even agree on the easy, obvious ones.

Why should it be taken for granted that those are easy, obvious ones? In fact, why should it even be assumed that any viable plan will be easy or obvious?

[DonaldD]

You can get almost a full tenth of a degree(F) of warming out of that one simple change in certain years(such as this last year), IIRC. When a LOT of this argument is over very tiny fractions of a degree year over year, THAT is significant.

And why do you think that is a problem?  We know that the Arctic is warming more quickly than the rest of the planet.  We know this from a multitude of data points, not limited to temperature measurements.

Excluding the Arctic from the data set is a decision, but one that is not inherently better or worse than including the Arctic.  HadCRUT excludes the Arctic, and shows a rate of warming (since 1980) of about 0.18C per decade, GISTEMP includes the Arctic, and shows warming of about 0.22C per decade.  And that difference is predictable, given what we know about what is happening in the Arctic.

What is clear in both cases is that there is a significant warming trend. We also know that HadCRUT is by its nature being conservative, so the global value is likely to be higher.  What this difference does not show is that there is any significant disagreement between the two data products. 

[TheDrake]

In general, I think the "lots of little things" approach is not only annoying but hard to prove effective. I remember a roommate once taking me to task over letting the TV auto off rather than turning it off manually. Then there's people who are unplugging electronics in standby mode. This religion just gets old, it doesn't even have good songs or pot luck dinners.

I once calculated the total amount of power that comes from residential lighting in the US. Guess what, it means f-all to the total numbers.

Mileage increases are like that. So we're going to increase mileage by N. Despite the fact that we know manufacturers have been faking the numbers, the fact that the test conditions don't reflect real-world driving scenarios in the first place, the fact that even nominally this only decreases fuel use by slight percentages - we're on the diminishing returns part of that curve. Then there's the idea of stripping the "standard" car down and then having the buyer add back the weight to make it functional.

When all that effort would be much better spent making qualitative differences, in my opinion, concentrated into areas with predicted benefits - rather than handwaving of "this oughtta do some good". A real plan has to be serious, not nibble around the corners.

When a solution is proposed, each item should be related to the total size of the problem, predictions according to various outcomes (what is the highest predicted solar install rate for a given subsidy, and what is the lowest). Add to that all the side benefits that you get.

[TheDeamon]

Regardless of climate change being a fact or fiction my bet is that in 20 to 50 years clean technology will be the driving force behind the economy.  Those that are stuck in the past will cry and push back, especially those who’s fortunes rely on keeping things the same, but it will happen.  That or we go Mad Max

My bet is that in 50 years Fusion Power is going to be baseline power generation for much of the world, wind/solar are going to supplemental/backup power sources, if anything.

[TheDeamon]

In general, I think the "lots of little things" approach is not only annoying but hard to prove effective. I remember a roommate once taking me to task over letting the TV auto off rather than turning it off manually. Then there's people who are unplugging electronics in standby mode. This religion just gets old, it doesn't even have good songs or pot luck dinners.

I once calculated the total amount of power that comes from residential lighting in the US. Guess what, it means f-all to the total numbers.

This is the stuff that some of the harder-core Environmentalists are starting to wake up to, and its also, surprise surprise, helping their credibility in other circles. Such as the growing list of Environmentalists that are pushing for Nuclear Power now, rather than fighting against like they have been for decades.

Wind and Solar is great and all, but it is horrid for "baseline" grid-level power, and requires a lot of other supporting tech(Battery) which comes with its own set of environmental hazards on top of Solar's unadvertised "dirty" side(Those solar installs don't last forever).

Pushing for energy conservation is great and all, but it likewise doesn't hold a candle to increasing demands for power from an increasing population to boot. "Lots of little things" isn't enough, for real change, we need grid-scale "big things" to close the gap, the only game in town for that at present is Nuclear and Hydro. Hydro has obvious constraints on it, and Nuclear has its own issues.

Which cycles back to ongoing annoyance about lack of support for Fusion Power research. And the hard anti-nuke push in general. THAT helped fuel a very significant amount of skepticism from a number of quarters.
"IF you're so concerned about CO2, why don't you just do _____."
"NEVER!"
"Ok, you must not be serious, and this is probably an agenda driven scam of some kind."

[yossarian22c]

My bet is that in 50 years Fusion Power is going to be baseline power generation for much of the world, wind/solar are going to supplemental/backup power sources, if anything.

People were making the same bet 50 years ago. I had a physics professor (a guy in his 70s) who when asked about fusion said that fusion power had been 20 years out his entire career and he expected it to perpetually stay there. That was almost 20 years ago - so far he's still right.

That said I would support investing billions in research in fusion power, it is the one technology that could actually produce a clean grid base load without figuring out massive energy storage systems.

[Seriati]

I still don't know what this argument is even about. Are you arguing over long-term strategy...or what?

We are arguing, I think, about whether the evidence is strong enough to overwhelm any contrary argument.  If, we are at an end of days moment - like a meteor strike, then what does the economy matter?  We should make every effort to stop carbon production.  Of course, our friends on the left don't actually believe that or they'd be advocating for a complete ban on economies such as China and India that are still increasing their rate of carbon production. 

Instead, we get another version of "American guilt" where our economy is asked to bear incredibly expensive and punitive carbon burdens that will slow the rate of increase not reduce it so that our dirtier competitors can produce more and we can feel better about "doing our part" AND social justice.

If we are truly at end of days, absolute carbon cuts should be the goal and that means increasing production at clean plants and forcing third world countries to shut down their factories, "social justice" be damned.  It's interesting that the US economy isn't "important enough" to consider, but third world ones are in their world view.

On the other hand if we're not at end of days, or if our solution is technical and not restrictive, everything that is being proposed as a solution is just doing more harm than good.  The only real benefit is that people get to assuage their cognitive dissonance by claiming they are "doing something," even if it's counterproductive.

I mean honestly, we instituted a massive infrastructure around "recycling" and from most estimates a very large percentage of that ends up in garbage dumps rather than recycled.  Multiply your personal time, by every person in the country, add in entire separate fleets of trucks, plants and even  international shipments, and weigh that cost against the benefits of what got recycled.  Did we come out ahead?  Wouldn't we have had a much better result by trying to convert people to re-usable rather than re-cyclable?

I doubt either of your positions is "never improve our carbon efficiency". So is the argument about rapidity?

My point is about the stuff above.  Environmental policies that apply more strictly to the cleanest plants in the world are counterproductive to the environment. 

I know that back in the time of the Kyoto protocol the 'consensus' seemed to be to apply a scorched Earth policy to the economy and just curtail production. I don't think that would have turned out well. As it happens, removing your economic base isn't a good way of finding funding for research.

Except that wasn't what Kyoto was about.  Kyoto was about a radical wealth transfer.  It put scorched earth measures on the cleanest first world plants, and had absolutely no restrictions on developing countries pollution.  It literally was an economic measure designed to destroy the planet.  The only nod it gave to "fixing" that problem was an attempt to force first world countries to transfer high end clean tech to the third world, but again the focus wasn't on expensive clean up measures but on the tech transfer itself.

[Seriati]

Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it

How exactly can you make this claim?  You have neither done original research in this area, nor have you reviewed anything but a small fraction (at best) of the original research.

How can I make the claim?  By reading some of the research, by investigating how it's conducting and not just relying on how the news chooses to report on it. 

Not sure how you think you can make a claim without doing that. 

[TheDeamon]

People were making the same bet 50 years ago. I had a physics professor (a guy in his 70s) who when asked about fusion said that fusion power had been 20 years out his entire career and he expected it to perpetually stay there. That was almost 20 years ago - so far he's still right.

That said I would support investing billions in research in fusion power, it is the one technology that could actually produce a clean grid base load without figuring out massive energy storage systems.

Uh, have you "checked in" on the status of Fusion Power research in the past 4 years or so?

If we don't have a controlled Fusion Power reaction release more energy than was used to create it within the next 5 years, I'm going to be shocked. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in the next 1 to 2 years. They're VERY close to achieving it now, and the progress has been happening rapidly.

Once THAT benchmark is cleared, all bets are off on the time-frame for anything happening with it. I highly doubt it will take 20 years from there.

[DonaldD]

By reading some of the research, by investigating how it's conducting and not just relying on how the news chooses to report on it.

So you admit, then, that you have only read a vanishingly small number of the tens of thousands of studies in this area. There could by literally 100 times as many studies that disagree with your position, but since you have not yourself read them, you wouldn't know.

[Seriati]

Wow DonaldD you caught me.  I'm not a climate change researcher.  Imagine that.  Meanwhile, you have expressed far greater certainty than I, based on apparently less research.

In any event, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that one would have to read every study that relates to the environment to have an opinion on the main sources of environmental research.  I can't see any reason to subscribe to that philosophy.   Or do you think there's a computer model out there that is no subject to the limitations on all computer models?  (i.e., that they can only "project" history restated, and that their conclusions are mandated by their assumptions?).

[DonaldD]

Not my point - my point is that even people who's careers are in this area cannot read and analyze any significant amount of the primary literature, except in a fairly limited scope.

They are dependent on other people to replicate, analyze and synthesize this knowledge.  They can trust this process because mistakes will show up either during attempts to replicate or while basing future research on the earlier research, and those mistakes are publicized to the detriment of the earlier researchers.  In the case of modern climate science, this process has been going on for over 50 years.

Without basing one's understanding of a topic as broad as climate change on this process, one is completely hamstrung in one's ability to come to terms with more than a tiny portion of the science.  And basing one's understanding of such a complex topic exclusively on a tiny portion of the science risks basing one's knowledge on a non-representative data set; even assuming one is not suffering under the misapprehension of false expertise; even assuming one's choice of research to survey is not weighted by subconscious bias.

[Fenring]

They are dependent on other people to replicate, analyze and synthesize this knowledge.  They can trust this process because mistakes will show up either during attempts to replicate or while basing future research on the earlier research, and those mistakes are publicized to the detriment of the earlier researchers.  In the case of modern climate science, this process has been going on for over 50 years.

You're absolutely right that a lot of trust is needed to do science work. Kuhn's book describes precisely how once a paradigm is accepted people must take it for granted in their daily work in order to get anything done. Over time anomalies are found that the theory cannot explain and eventually it's overturned. However there are two difficulties when inspecting climate science. One is that 'daily work' isn't quite a thing in climate science like it is in the other sciences, involving lab work, experiments, functional activity that needs theory as a basis; in other words, it seems like most of the work involved is in collecting data and trying to come up with a paradigm in the first place. And this leads directly to the second problem, which is that as of now there isn't really an accepted paradigm of how 'climate works' that can be more or less taken for granted as a general theory. There simply isn't a general theory to speak of, at least that I've heard of. So this makes it especially difficult to speak of consensus as being authoritative.

In the other sciences, a 'consensus' isn't really a matter of how likely it is that they're right, but rather it refers to an operating model upon which they'll do work. As long as it basically works well the paradigm is effective, even if incomplete or problematic in certain cases that need to be solved by an updated or new paradigm. For instance Newtonian physics was quite adequate for certain macro physics problems even though it's of less value right now for calculating small events. As such, a consensus of climate scientists to me should mean a large group of workers who operate on a common theory and get results in whatever capacity they're working. It wouldn't be a question of rightness or wrongness, but rather a question of true effectiveness - they get results. However in the case of climate science right now this isn't the sort of situation we're in, where the science is too new and undeveloped to be able to speak of any general theory. To an extent this is because of the complexity of what's involved; in a similar way this is why there's no 'science' of economics right now. Both subjects involve fluid dynamics in complex interactions with changing systems. To be fair economics is probably even worse, but at least it's restricted mostly to human interaction, whereas climate science should take into account *all* factors, including human action. So to me it's suspicious to speak of a consensus in a field with no general theory; all that means right now is they seem to agree on data. Seriati and TheDeamon seem to even be disputing that they truly agree on data, but even if we put that objection aside we're still left with the reality that there's no 'art' of climate science right now, only preliminary hypothesis. I think a lot of the resistance comes with the certainty of claims that are made. I've read claims just as certain in economic circles going back a hundred years, and every time the 'expert' were sure of something they were completely full of it. It's actually scandalous how little they really knew compared to what they claimed they knew. I'm not saying it's exactly comparable in climate science, but even briefly looking at a history of expert opinion should make you cringe at the thought of experts in a field with no general theory making long-term claims.

That being said, I would *still* advocate to devote significant funds towards protecting the environment, even if no disaster is coming. It's a safeguard against the possibility of a disaster, but also something that should be done anyhow on principle. But ah! There's the rub. Things are rarely done now without economic incentive, and that's a major weakness of capitalism. Central governmental power has its uses, one of which is long-term planning and committing to significant projects. If I were king I would most certainly push hard for R&D into all sorts of things to move us away from fossil fuels. We don't need the sky to be falling to do this, but as expected when people are free to refuse to do difficult things they're usually only get around to it when there's a fire under their a**. That alone is a major issue to remedy.

[NobleHunter]

Uh, have you "checked in" on the status of Fusion Power research in the past 4 years or so?

If we don't have a controlled Fusion Power reaction release more energy than was used to create it within the next 5 years, I'm going to be shocked. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in the next 1 to 2 years. They're VERY close to achieving it now, and the progress has been happening rapidly.

Once THAT benchmark is cleared, all bets are off on the time-frame for anything happening with it. I highly doubt it will take 20 years from there.

So Xeno's fusion reactor is down to five or ten years out. That's progress but still not quite time to start taking timelines at face value.

[DonaldD]

isn't quite a thing in climate science like it is in the other sciences, involving lab work, experiments, functional activity that needs theory as a basis

This is not quite accurate, unless you limit yourself to some very specific areas of research.

For instance, well before we had satellites capable of measuring outgoing radiation for the atmosphere, there were predictions about the changes we would expect to see in the case of increased GHGs in the atmosphere, predictions that were borne out in practice once satellites began measuring this radiation.

That's quite aside from small scale experiments that also have been done to confirm GHG behaviour to different radiation wavelengths in a lab environment.

[TheDrake]

Power - several big problems that can be solved with existing technology.

1. distributed collection, generation, and usage

If power is generated at the location it will be used, you don't have transmission losses. It is also much more robust. It could be as simple as removing the ability of HOA to block wind turbines. Or removing environmental impact studies. Clean energy distribution should be an automatic trump card. Wind farms shouldn't be blocked because some dumb-ass birds are going to fly into the blades. Not if we really are in crisis mode.

2. eliminate the need to drive

Most workers in the information economy could work full time from home. If so, you don't have to take the energy hit for commuting, plus HVAC lighting and everything else to run an office park. Increased automation for physical work also helps. 2-3 % improvement in fake MPG numbers? How about 20-30% less driving instead?

3. durable goods

The energy expended replacing cheap garbage constantly is probably large. Pressboard disposable furniture should be a big target. The Dollar store should have an even bigger stigma against it, because that frying pan is going to get replaced on an annual basis instead of being generational.

4. Property use

Get rid of the energy expended on a lawn that is often mandated by HOA, or local ordinance. Allow gardens in their place, reducing food transport costs. Eliminate restrictions on small livestock in residential areas.


These aren't necessarily government policy, but rather a much bigger advocacy advantage than telling someone to be careful about their lights and set their thermostat 2 degrees higher or lower.

All the other things can be done as well, and I wouldn't oppose a JFK, national pride approach to energy reduction. Do a really cool, ultra public Apollo/Manhattan type program. Publicly fund it, and keep the IP rights open so every other country can follow suit. In fact, they can join in, but we should be prepared to foot the bill.

That's assuming we want to treat it as a serious crisis, like the potential of losing the high ground of space, or defending against the threat of Communist expansion. Otherwise we are just paying lip service to the whole thing, like Kyoto and Paris, not solving the problem but modestly mitigating it.

I can only imagine the moon howling that goes on if somebody tried to launch an environmental crisis program though. Waaah, other countries aren't paying as much. Waaah, my tax dollars. Waaah, coal miners. Waah, the science isn't real because I read a blog that cherry picked some results and showed them incorrect.

My other items don't have to grab the electrified rail of climate science. They all have immediate economic and health benefits, and many can be accomplished without giant bales of currency.

[Fenring]

isn't quite a thing in climate science like it is in the other sciences, involving lab work, experiments, functional activity that needs theory as a basis

This is not quite accurate, unless you limit yourself to some very specific areas of research.

For instance, well before we had satellites capable of measuring outgoing radiation for the atmosphere, there were predictions about the changes we would expect to see in the case of increased GHGs in the atmosphere, predictions that were borne out in practice once satellites began measuring this radiation.

That's quite aside from small scale experiments that also have been done to confirm GHG behaviour to different radiation wavelengths in a lab environment.

What I mean to say is that there's no other branch of science where agreement is required of anyone, no less the general public. In any field you take a theory and you can work with it or not. The results of your work will dictate whether you're barking up the wrong tree or not. It's never before (and I mean, ever) been about anyone coming to a common conclusion and agreeing about it on a theoretical level. Someone posits a theory, and others can test against it or use it as they wish. If it's good many will adopt it unless it becomes standard, being superior to the alternatives. Climate science just isn't there yet. And the worst part is, in a new science that's just finding its first teeth, somehow the public is meant to both understand it and also say something about it in a meaningful way? This would never occur in another field, and the only reason it does here is because the scientists (or popular writers) are calling for government action, rather than for private work to be allowed. Because of course private work is allowed. Now I could see a case for arguing that climate scientists should get the kind of funding particle physics researchers do. That's a point, and if funding is unequal for a field meant to help protect the environment then I, too, would be upset about it. I don't actually know what funding levels are like but if someone told me that climate science is treated like dirt I'd take issue with that. But this business of everyone being told to jump and we're supposed to say how high, on account of very new science - do you realize how unprecedented this is in history? Even if the findings were 100% valid that would still be a weird social phenomenon. Through most of the 20th century discoveries came in one of two packages: either an idea you could ruminate over as you wished for personal enjoyment, or else as a tangible product, often inventions or processes. So in both cases a discovery would always be a positive addition to someone's life (putting aside bad inventions that turn out to be useless and you wasted money on).

So now a new discovery, it is claimed, requires huge sacrifice and will come with a cost for the knowledge, rather than a gain. I can't think of a case prior to this where people's material lives were meant to be harmed in order to partake of a discovery, and they should not only accept it but call for it? And as I say this I don't even speak of whether they should, in fact, comply, but rather the fact that this crazy new phenomenon has never happened before and has been delivered with the graciousness of an ultimatum. Do this! Or else! How better it all could have been handled is a matter for another conversation, but no credit seems ever to be given to resistance simply because many people are rightly cautious before jumping into a new thing that will have major costs. So I'm not really down with the "you'd better get with the program" approach to popularizing scientific ideas. It makes it feel too much like a cult. If science is solid then it will simply become the basis for scientific work. No one ever had to convince the public that relativity is a good theory. Let people use it in their calculations and if it stands the test of time then it's probably pretty good. But the claim here is that there's no time to permit for normal scientific rigor or scrutiny. It is, in fact, possible for there to exist a situation where time is of the essence. But where's the recognition of how abnormal and even dangerous it is to ask of people to accept a theory given by a new science, to submit to it, and not to argue any more? Even if this demand does have to be made (if doomsday is coming), how about a little awareness of how bizarre the argument is, even if correct?

[Seriati]

That's an interesting take on it Fen, I'd add that the fact that the "do it or else" message has been deliberately tainted with programs and requirements that actively undermine the goal (helping the environment) while achieving completely different goals (economic redistribution), makes directly obvious that whether or not there is merit to the underlying science there is no merit to the implementation. 

It's inevitable that some of the taint of false purposes, will backfill into the the rationale for the change in the first place.  In other words, if the experts identify a problem, and the "must act" solution will make it worse rather than better, it taints the claim there is a problem.

[DJQuag]

https://youtu.be/NFPtjXFfczM

[TheDrake]

And yet it was super easy to convince everyone that saccharine was deadly and pull it from the market.

And basically nothing got people on the gluten free bandwagon.

There just wasn't as much money at stake in those cases. Climate change was immediately fought back against with petrodollars.

Added to that is a whole lot of grumbling that the world ain't what it used to be - like grousing about low-flow toilets, the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs, or not having your favorite hairspray.

Trump pontificated on that last one:

"You know, you're not allowed to hair spray anymore because it affects the ozone," Trump said. "Hair spray's not like it used to be. It used to be real good," he added.

[Wayward Son]

Fenring, I think you have a skewed understand of what climate science is.

Climate science is built upon established science.  The established theories of fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, solar insolation and such.  There is no overarching theory because there doesn't need to be.  There is just the combination of how we know these systems interact.  That is the accepted paradigm of how climate works.

The only problems is that climate is a chaotic system, and so impossible to know precisely the weather from year-to-year, and that there are so many factors included in the systems that it is difficult to identify them all.

But it's not like Scientist X has one paradigm he's working from, and Scientist Y is working from a completely different one.  They have the same one.  It is just refining the interaction of these components that is so difficult.

And the basic idea is not controversial at all.  Greenhouse gases are what keeps this planet warmer than the moon.  Increasing the concentration of those gases will increase the amount of heat our planet retains, i.e. it gets warmer.  There is no doubt about it.  That is why President Johnson mentioned global warming over 50 years ago in a speech to Congress.  Only the details--exactly how much it is warming the planet and when it will get warmer--is still being studied and refined.

[Crunch]

Not my point - my point is that even people who's careers are in this area cannot read and analyze any significant amount of the primary literature, except in a fairly limited scope.

They are dependent on other people to replicate, analyze and synthesize this knowledge.  They can trust this process because mistakes will show up either during attempts to replicate or while basing future research on the earlier research, and those mistakes are publicized to the detriment of the earlier researchers.  In the case of modern climate science, this process has been going on for over 50 years.

Without basing one's understanding of a topic as broad as climate change on this process, one is completely hamstrung in one's ability to come to terms with more than a tiny portion of the science.  And basing one's understanding of such a complex topic exclusively on a tiny portion of the science risks basing one's knowledge on a non-representative data set; even assuming one is not suffering under the misapprehension of false expertise; even assuming one's choice of research to survey is not weighted by subconscious bias.

That’s the longest winded appeal to authority I’ve seen in a long time. 

You know what the average person can very easily do? We can look at the theory’s predictions and see if they come true. For a guy that loves getting people to make predictions, I’d think you would embrace this.

Hansen and fellow scientist Michael Oppenheimer predicted temperatures would rise 3-9 degrees as early as 2025. We’re still a few years out but how’s that looking?  Global temperature has risen only slightly more than 0.5° F in that time.

The scare was that 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. Anybody know where they went? Adter thst epic failure, it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020. 18 months to go, when’s this gonna start?

Tuvalu sunk yet? With only 3-4 inches increase in sea levels - which is well within natural variability of the last decades - it seems they’re safe. Speaking of safe, did we get Katrina scale storms as our new norm, as predicted. Or, did we insread see just the opposite with the longest stretch of time in history without a major storm?

There are so, so, many more, I hope you get the idea.

So no, we don’t have to devote our lives to science in order to understand the complex and arcane secrets of climate. That logical fallacy you’re promoting is a fallacy for a reason.

We can look at the results predicted and easily see that the theory failed. Hansen, Gore, all the acolytes of the global warming religion have been proven wrong by the simple fact that their predictions failed. Miserably so. 

[TheDrake]

Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.

Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.

The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.

So in other words, things get predicted as bad, then people do something about it, and it comes up shorter than the predictions.

Hansen’s predictions have thus become a target of climate denier misinformation. It began way back in 1998, when the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels – who has admitted that something like 40% of his salary comes from the fossil fuel industry – arguably committed perjury in testimony to Congress. Invited by Republicans to testify as the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement was in the works, Michaels was asked to evaluate how Hansen’s predictions were faring 10 years later.

In his presentation, Michaels deleted Hansen’s Scenarios B and C – the ones closest to reality – and only showed Scenario A to make it seem as though Hansen had drastically over-predicted global warming. Deleting inconvenient data in order to fool his audience became a habit for Patrick Michaels, who quickly earned a reputation of dishonesty in the climate science world, but has nevertheless remained a favorite of oil industry and conservative media.

But go ahead keep regurgitating easily refuted AGW talking points. I'm not going to waste time taking them all on.

[DonaldD]

So now a new discovery, it is claimed, requires huge sacrifice and will come with a cost for the knowledge, rather than a gain.

No, the discovery  requires no sacrifice of anybody. It simply is.  That this 'discovery' is interpreted by many to require them to take actions that they disagree with is not a reason to argue against the discovery; it may be a reason for them to argue against making the sacrifice, but that's another kettle of fish.

As to it being a "new" discovery?  it's been more than 30 years now.  How many generations will it take for the "discovery" to no longer be considered as "new"?

[Seriati]

Your position does put you firmly in the "believer" column, although I do question the depth of your belief.

Belief in what?  And again, what does "belief" have to do with it?  Do you describe yourself as a "believer" in gravity?  I mean sure you believe its there, but belief is hardly the question when it comes to the how and the why.

(If I were stuck on a ship that I thought was most likely sinking because of what we were doing, but no one had a good plan on how to stop it, I think I would spend much less energy on defending those who thought the ship wasn't really sinking and far more energy on trying to find a way to keep the freaking thing afloat. )

I really like this analogy, it plays in so many ways.

Are you going to "believe" your ship is sinking because a hysterical person is screaming they saw water below decks?  Does it change your mind if you understand that some water is normal on the type of ship you're on, and that there are pumps that address it?  The ship could be sinking, or the person crying about it could have a strong "belief" that isn't based on all the facts.

So let's decide the ship really is sinking.  A group of concern passengers have decided that because wood floats and we don't want to waste it, we should tear it out of the Hull below the water line, and nail to the deck.  Do you help them, because we have to do "something" because the ship is sinking?  Or do you consider that what they are doing is actually making the process worse?

Let's say, the person that says the boat is sinking, locked the door, has a gun and wants you to pay to get on the life raft.  Do you think they are being honest about what's going on?  What if they just locked the door and you know they have a big insurance policy on the boat, do you think it's worth checking whether there is a way to stop the leak or do you just jump on the boat because "mitigation" can't be the answer?

Let's say the boat really is sinking, but it's the middle of a storm, are you getting in the life rafts with your family and friends where at least 50% will die, or are you staying with the ship and trying to fix it, say 75% chance everyone who stays lives, but otherwise they all die?  We don't really know, what the "odds" are of better solutions, but we do know there are dramatic costs to whats been offered up as solutions. 

The other thing is about proof in science.  Unlike mathematics, you can never really "prove" a scientific theory.  There is always the possibility of it being changed or disproven by new facts.

This is true, and it literally undercuts the entire point you made about consensus.  A consensus opinion is not a fact, or a better version of a statement.  Does a consensus opinion that fireworks are pretty, describe an objective truth?

What you can state is that the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that the theory is sound.  This includes measurements, models, predictions and consensus.

Are you talking about climate science or science generally?  I'm not aware that there is a "theory" of climate science.  I'm certainly not aware that there is any global experiment ever run on the climate or any results that bear out your claim here.

Measurements.  It's literally fact that there is no accurate measurement of temperature for the Earth.  The vast majority of the planet has no regular direct measurements.  Even where they do have them, the historical record and instrument quality over time degrades to the point of garbage if you go back even 4 decades.  You're literally down to a comparative handful of halfway credible sources if you go back 100 years.

Models.  Models aren't science.  Models are used when experiments can't be run to pretend that they can be run.  Computers literally can not return a result that isn't assumed.  Hear this clearly.  All a computer can do is tell you what you told it to say.  There is no computer driven model that doesn't specifically conclude exactly what its programmers told it had to say.  That literally means if you program in carbon forcing - which you'd have to do based on our understanding - models can not generate any result other than warming.  Pretending that a computer made your original conclusion into something new and "more valid" is nonsense.  It's not science it's just manipulation of people not understanding the difference.

Predictions.  Literally the only prediction is this.  In a closed system carbon makes the system get hotter, ergo in our environment it will do so too.  That's it.  A kid could run the actual experiment with a fish tank.  Every thing else is like a priest's regalia, it's all there to make you think there's more credibility, but it has no meaning and truthfully adds nothing.  Don't get me wrong, the kid's fish tank actually has merit, but the climate is far more complex than a closed system.

Consensus.  Again its garbage.  It's kind of like how teacher's in a union have a "consensus" that their strike helps the children.  No.  They have rationalizations that they've accepted because they are core to their belief system.  Climate scientists have all bought into the effacacy of modelling, and they've rationalized it to their core.  To do otherwise, is to admit their careers are not real science.

Consensus is part of the evidence because those who know the most about a subject are much better at being "right" about it than the layman.

There is some truth to that.  Of course, we don't let experts set their own rules without being monitored, because even though they are experts, they have a gross conflict of interest.  Much like it's hard to get cops to testify against a dirty cop, or doctors to call out a colleague for malpractice.  If you don't see where there are conflicts here, then you're missing a real and important factor in evaluating credibility. 

Just like professional car mechanics are more likely to know how to fix your car than the guy off the street,

Interesting thing about mechanics is how often they repair things that are not broken.  Ever watched a hidden camera show?

Because they are familiar with the subject and its details; they have questioned and reviewed the evidence in the subject; they have tested the information,

They've tested it?  Maybe you can expand on the climate tests they've run.

looking for flaws;

By "flaws" what they are normally looking for are incremental changes to formulas with thousands of inputs.  Not systemic reconception of how they use modelling.

they have made practical predictions and seen how they turned out;

A more accurate description, is they've made wildass guesses but been lucky that they are predicting around a line with a clear trend.  Kind of like "predicting" the stock market will rise over time - doesn't make you a genius or tell you how to get rich.

IOW, they have done everything you expect the skeptics to have done, but on a professional level, where their reputations and livelihood are at stake.

Their training is in computers and statistics.  The data is really secondary.  Do you really think that statistics majors have better insight into how the climate works than others?

Which means that the consensus of experts should be given significant weight when deciding whether a hypothesis is likely to be true or not.  It is not just an "argument from authority."

It's nothing more than the "science" it rests on.  1 million people repeating a computer's conclusion that was forced by the input of one assumption, doesn't add any credibility to the original assumption.

[DonaldD]

They've tested it?  Maybe you can expand on the climate tests they've run.

I'm not Wayward, but I gave two examples above.  You can find more for yourself if you like.

I'm certainly not aware that there is any global experiment ever run on the climate or any results that bear out your claim here.

Ahh, so you're looking for experiments where a planet is replicated, and all variables are held constant with the exception of a single variable which is varied in a controlled fashion - and preferably, the test should be double blind.  Good luck with that.

This is true, and it literally undercuts the entire point you made about consensus.

It doesn't, but it illustrates that you continue to misunderstand his point.

Their training is in computers and statistics.

This goes to show that you have little appreciation for all the different areas of research that inform climate science.  Granted all scientists today are educated in statistics and computer analysis, but that does not mean that, for instance, a neuroscientist's training is "in computers and statistics", any more than is an atmospheric physicist, a solar physicist, an atmospheric chemist, a geophysicist or a geochemist.  Of course, members of research teams are absolutely trained in computer analysis, statistics and mathematics, but the people who are exclusively trained in those disciplines do not make up a significant number of the researchers involved in studying the climate.

You really need to get past the idea that climate models are the primary research areas of the majority of researchers falling under the umbrella of climate scientists.

[TheDeamon]

That's quite aside from small scale experiments that also have been done to confirm GHG behaviour to different radiation wavelengths in a lab environment.

But ignores other items, like:
1) Water is a greenhouse gas, but it also forms white clouds, which in turn potentially lowers the planetary albedo. What little observational data exists(september 11th, 2001) suggests it's potentially a net 0 effect. (It reflects as much heat away as it traps) However, it is uncertain if cloud layers at different altitudes will have different impacts.

2) CO2 also is "a greenhouse gas" although it also appears that there continues to be considerable dispute over the relevant forcings being attributed to CO2, and the matter of it reaching a point of diminishing returns.

With models ranging from a 0.164 degree(C) temperature increase("Skeptic" model) going from 400 PPM to 1,000PPM, to a 1.915 degree(C) swing in a AGW(non-skeptic) model. In my quick googling around, the more pessimistic "skeptic" model opts for 0.382 degrees(C) from CO2 once increased to 1000PPM, while to most optimistic AGW (non-skeptic) model cited gave 0.821 degrees(C)  as a consequence of CO2 reaching 1,000 PPM.

It seems neither the skeptics, nor the AGW proponents seem to be agreed upon "GHG Behavior" as you seem to want to claim. They don't seem to be agreeable with their own respective sides, never mind between the two sides.

[DonaldD]

Do you really believe that the effects of water vapour in the atmosphere are being ignored?  That is a popular meme in some circles, it gets traction with a certain segment of the internet, but it ignores reality.

[TheDeamon]

Do you really believe that the effects of water vapour in the atmosphere are being ignored?  That is a popular meme in some circles, it gets traction with a certain segment of the internet, but it ignores reality.

It isn't being ignored, it is how the IPCC came up with a significant portion of their warming. But that assumes they have a correct understanding of the processes involved, and even the IPCC acknowledges deficiencies exist, particularly on the micro scale.

[rightleft22]

What does the " IPCC acknowledging that deficiencies exist" mean, in context of the debate?

[TheDeamon]

What does the " IPCC acknowledging that deficiencies exist" mean, in context of the debate?

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html

Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Tropospheric water vapour concentration diminishes rapidly with height, since it is ultimately limited by saturation-specific humidity, which strongly decreases as temperature decreases. Nevertheless, these relatively low upper-tropospheric concentrations contribute disproportionately to the ‘natural’ greenhouse effect, both because temperature contrast with the surface increases with height, and because lower down the atmosphere is nearly opaque at wavelengths of strong water vapour absorption.

In the stratosphere, there are potentially important radiative impacts due to anthropogenic sources of water vapour, such as from methane oxidation (see Section 2.3.7). In the troposphere, the radiative forcing due to direct anthropogenic sources of water vapour (mainly from irrigation) is negligible (see Section 2.5.6). Rather, it is the response of tropospheric water vapour to warming itself – the water vapour feedback – that matters for climate change. In GCMs, water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases). There are also possible stratospheric water vapour feedback effects due to tropical tropopause temperature changes and/or changes in deep convection (see Sections 3.4.2 and 8.6.3.1.1).

The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in water vapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism. Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming (see Section 8.6.3.1). Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere. In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4). This further enhances moisture changes in this region, but also introduces a partially offsetting radiative response from the temperature increase, and the net effect of the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback is to amplify the warming in response to forcing by around 50% (Section 8.6.2.3). The close link between these processes means that water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks are commonly considered together. The strength of the combined feedback is found to be robust across GCMs, despite significant inter-model differences, for example, in the mean climatology of water vapour (see Section 8.6.2.3).

Confidence in modelled water vapour feedback is thus affected by uncertainties in the physical processes controlling upper-tropospheric humidity, and confidence in their representation in GCMs. One important question is what the relative contribution of large-scale advective processes (in which confidence in GCMs’ representation is high) is compared with microphysical processes (in which confidence is much lower) for determining the distribution and variation in water vapour. Although advection has been shown to establish the general distribution of tropical upper-tropospheric humidity in the present climate (see Section 8.6.3.1), a significant role for microphysics in humidity response to climate change cannot yet be ruled out.

More specifically: Clouds. They don't fully understand them.

After all, the presence of water vapor does not necessarily make a cloud happen. They can model water vapor(aka humidity) with reasonable confidence. Clouds are another matter.

To get a cliff-notes overview of that specific issue try watching a minute of this from the bookmarked start point. Although I think many in here wouldshould find the entire video of interest.
https://youtu.be/_3jXCo3BVuA?t=22m35s

[TheDeamon]

To get a cliff-notes overview of that specific issue try watching a minute of this from the bookmarked start point. Although I think many in here wouldshould find the entire video of interest.
https://youtu.be/_3jXCo3BVuA?t=22m35s

As a heads up warning, the video in question is a documentary following the development of a theory involving Stellar Radiation and cloud formation, and its potential impacts on climate.

There are some things discussed there that don't quite line up with my understanding of things, but then, I never looked too hard at galactic astronomy and those parts of astrophysics.

But assuming that one guy wasn't blowing smoke, they probably have a theory that probably also explains "Greenhouse Venus" if you take a couple steps back from it. It just also pisses off the AGW crowd along the way. As it means their models probably work great... for the situation Venus is in, but not Earth.

[DonaldD]

More specifically: Clouds. They don't fully understand them.

Welcome to science.  The IPCC calls out an area of uncertainty requiring further research, and you consider this a problem?

[Crunch]

Now, contrast that with the “the science is settled” argument anyone who calls out the failures of AGW is subjected to. 

[TheDeamon]

More specifically: Clouds. They don't fully understand them.

Welcome to science.  The IPCC calls out an area of uncertainty requiring further research, and you consider this a problem?

Because "The Science is settled" didn't you know? So if the IPCC says they don't understand something, even if they go to great lengths not to admit it, that clearly is a just a mis-understanding of what they "really meant" as once again, the science is settled, whatever the further discoveries are in those respective areas are not going to upset their proverbial apple cart.

Or you can get even more technical, while clouds are aerosols of water, they technically aren't necessarily "water vapor" in regards to being water in a gaseous state. But rather liquid water(precipitate) in an air borne state, which gives them more wiggle room in how they express themselves in research documentation. It is that very same "precipitate state" that they have insufficient understanding of in order to try to properly model it. Yes, they understand elements of it, ie "water vapor condenses around airborne particulate matter"  but they don't sufficiently understand the how or why behind what makes it do so, or not do so in any particular given circumstance. Sure they can plug in arbitrary proxies to approximate it in their models, but that makes the model only as valid as their choice in arbitrary proxy and its ability to reflect reality.

And when both water vapor and cloud formation play major roles in both warming and cooling of the planet, that's kind of a big deal. Particularly when there are theories out there(like the one in that documentary) which appear to be able to create giant holes in their existing models.(And further checking on my end hasn't, yet, poked any significant holes in that one; if anything, it's ironically poking holes in statements made by bloggers/others who are (unknowingly) providing the "corroborating information" as they're "inverted" relative to that same theory and supporting evidence--according to them Cosmic Radiation is expected to warm the planet, not cool it)

[Greg Davidson]

My hypothesis is that almost all opposition to climate change science is based on political loyalties and not on actual judgement about the level of empirical evidence. If I am right, we would also observe that those who reject climate science are willing to trust medical science that is no more well-established, even to the degree that they will bet their lives on some procedures over others, based on less conclusive evidence than that supporting many of the findings of climate science.

[TheDeamon]

My hypothesis is that almost all opposition to climate change science is based on political loyalties and not on actual judgement about the level of empirical evidence. If I am right, we would also observe that those who reject climate science are willing to trust medical science that is no more well-established, even to the degree that they will bet their lives on some procedures over others, based on less conclusive evidence than that supporting many of the findings of climate science.

Love the lack of conditionals or quantifiers there. Of course you're going to find Vaxxers, Contrailers, Truthers, and a whole slew of others in the skeptic circle. That doesn't mean that everyone who is a skeptic on AGW also is a Vaxxer, or that anywhere close to a majority of them are. There might be a plurality, but I'd be a little dubious on that one.

As to political loyalties, as it's been something of a political issue since the 1980's at the least, there undoubtedly is a strong correlation, but that doesn't necessarily mean causation(in regards to their being conservative "causing" them to be AGW skeptics).

I think there is probably a MUCH stronger correlation to be had among communists and socialists and their desires to support AGW causes and research that makes the case. In that respect, you might be closer to the mark as to conservatives being a bit skeptical about the subject matter, because they're responding to who "the pushers" are more than anything else.

[Greg Davidson]

The Deamon,

My point was different - there are some cranks on just about any issue that you can name. But climate change skepticism is different. For many decades, the same groups that were producing fraudulent research to argue that smoking didn't cause cancer were also fighting against evidence of climate change https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/. And this is not a liberal-conservative difference - because almost everywhere else in the world both liberals and conservatives agree that the fundamental debate is over. Only in the United States and in particular with the Republican Party (and their corporate sponsors) is there the pretense of a debate as to whether or not there is climate change due to human causes.

And when August 11, 2028 comes around, and then August 11, 2038, and it is so completely obvious that the Republican position was as disingenuous as the decades-long argument about smoking and cancer, all those who believed in those fantastical myths should own up to your own responsibility through your votes for the harm that you have caused.

[TheDeamon]

The Deamon,

My point was different - there are some cranks on just about any issue that you can name. But climate change skepticism is different. For many decades, the same groups that were producing fraudulent research

I'm going to snip here because it amuses me to do so.

You're forgetting an important group of "skeptics" in all of this: The ones who DO know "the state of the science" and have been constantly going "Woah, wait a second here." Yes, their level of certainty about certain aspects has progressed over time, but that still doesn't mean full buy-in on other parts of it.

Bad science is bad science, spouting off about "scientific projections" using models of unknown reliability or efficacy is also highly dangerous as it causes potential to "poison the well" as it were.

You know, like Al Gore making ominous predictions on the Senate Floor in the late 1980's using "the latest science" about how totally screwed we were going to be, by the year 2000 no less, if drastic actions were not taken immediately regarding Global Warming. Well... Drastic actions weren't taken,  Y2K was some 18 years ago, and Global Warming hasn't caused the world to collapse into anarchy yet. So much for the infallibility of Science.

Or how about predictions that teens living in Great Britain in the year 2018 would never see snow fall in Great Britain, and probably not see it fall anywhere else either for that matter. SOME Climate models predicted that after all, the Science is settled after all, anybody who says the models are unreliable must obviously be working for the same groups who did cancer studies for Phillip Morris.

That the IPCC has run hundreds of published computer models and only had a single digit percentage of them come even remotely close to predicting what really happened(and all of them having a warm bias) also shouldn't be taken to mean that "the Science isn't completely there yet." It actually it quite settled actually, and their failure to properly predict temperature is merely an unfortunate anomaly.

Never mind that in any other scientific field, if your model failed to accurately predict things, you'd be told to go back to the drawing board. Not so here, the models cannot properly predict anything, but they MUST be trusted all the same and be given the same full faith and credit you would give the industrial chemist brewing the next batch of life-saving medications for members of your family, or the power plant operator overseeing a Nuclear Reactor. Because the science is settled on this issue.

[Greg Davidson]

Never mind that in any other scientific field, if your model failed to accurately predict things, you'd be told to go back to the drawing board.

Is your argument that you have debunked global warming by refuting predictions of (a) global anarchy, and (b) teens living in Great Britain in the year 2018 would never see snow fall in Great Britain? Is your argument that on balance the predictions of climate science have been less accurate that most other fields of science that you do not question? https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/.  I have worked with the actual scientists doing this research, and I hate to spoil it for you, but Al Gore is not one of them.

In 1985 I heard Tom Schelling give a talk about climate change (he was a cold warrior who later won a Nobel Prize for aspects of game theory that were used to set US-nuclear weapons doctrine in the 1950s, not your stereotypical liberal by any means). He showed data on the growth of atmospheric carbon from the prior 20 years, and extrapolated forwards to 2050. Using a game theory perspective, he talked about what the likely response of Corporations would be to a potential devaluation of trillions of dollars of their assets buried in the ground in the form of fossil fuels. His prediction was that the response to climate change would be the biggest threat to human life over the next 65 years, and yet financial incentives would drive Corporations to mount the most fierce resistance using all means within their powers to fight against protective measures.

A pretty sound prediction.

[TheDeamon]

Sounds kinda vague, don't have time right now.

Did appreciate this part however:

According to Manabe himself — still active at age 85 — the modeling of large-scale processes, like atmospheric circulation, is virtually identical today to what it was in the 1960s. Smaller-scale phenomena, like moist convection, cloud processes, and land surface processes were much simpler back then, and have improved in both precision and accuracy, although uncertainties (particularly in clouds) still remain. There are some aspects of models that are ineffective, he notes, but not for the reason people think:

[Fenring]

In 1985 I heard Tom Schelling give a talk about climate change (he was a cold warrior who later won a Nobel Prize for aspects of game theory that were used to set US-nuclear weapons doctrine in the 1950s, not your stereotypical liberal by any means). He showed data on the growth of atmospheric carbon from the prior 20 years, and extrapolated forwards to 2050.

I'm not looking to take a position on the argument as a whole, but I did want to comment on this mention of game theory. I'm no expert in that 'field', if we can call it that, as it's often linked with mathematics and given some kind of accolades. All I'll say about it is that I've read a few textbooks on the subject to see what the fuss was about, and my conclusion in each case is that the entire subject appears to me to be bogus pseudo-reasoning. I could be wrong, but I've rarely read about any new subject (new to me) and distinctly noted when reading about it that it didn't make sense and was a house of cards built upon faulty premises. The entire idea of quantifying different options in a scenario and then calculating the 'best' outcome is so myopic that at times when reading the more 'advanced' examples (such as ones actually used historically in military application) I laughed out loud at how reductionist and simplistic they were. Maybe I only had the kiddie's version and the real thing is totally serious or something. But let's just say I'm skeptical.

I mention this not to lay into game theory (as I don't know if anyone here would be interested to have that conversation) but rather to suggest that there's a certain mentality that goes into game theory which I consider to be suspect in certain intellectual traditions, wherein very complex and even gargantuan problems are listed as being a few simple variables and "solved' easily. Of course what I mean to say is that nothing is actually solved since the conclusions only follow naturally from the false and reductionist premises, and those are to blame, not the syllogism that led from premise to conclusion. The style of argument in game theory strikes me as being remarkably Aristotelian in that it feels confident to employ strangely simple premises as clear "facts" and then to derive all sorts of conclusions from them, when in fact the entire exercise amounts to little more than a fantasy; like a D&D session where amazing conclusions are drawn from the Player's Handbook about how to solve problems, notwithstanding the fact that the Handbook is made-up in the first place. It seems to me that when citing a person's credentials in climate science, game theory isn't, in my opinion, that good of a selling point since in my view the failings of game theory are precisely the failings that Seriati and TheDeamon are suggesting exist in climate science. I personally don't know enough about climate science to make any such claim, and maybe Schelling was the real deal as you say. But if you wanted to promote Newton's math as being groundbreaking I wouldn't suggest a marketing scheme announcing how qualified he is on account of his work in alchemy. All that's going to do is make him sound like a quack. Not that game theory has that reputation generally...although it does to me.

[DonaldD]

So if the IPCC says they don't understand something, even if they go to great lengths not to admit it

It sounds very much like you are conflating media coverage and internet warriors with the IPCC.  How could the IPCC be going to great lengths not to admit something that they called it out in the very passage you quoted? 

[Greg Davidson]

Some summaries of Tom Schelling's work from wikipedia

The Strategy of Conflict (1960)
The Strategy of Conflict, which Schelling published in 1960,[16] pioneered the study of bargaining and strategic behavior in what Schelling refers to as "conflict behavior." The Times Literary Supplement in 1995 listed it as one of the hundred most influential books since 1945.[17] In this book he introduced concepts like focal point and credible commitment. Chapter headings include "A Reorientation of Game Theory," "Randomization of Promises and Threats," and "Surprise Attack: A Study of Mutual Distrust."

The strategic view toward conflict that Schelling encourages in this work is equally "rational" and "successful."[16] That said, it cannot merely be based one's intelligence alone, but must also address the "advantages" associated with a course of action; though even the advantages gleaned, he says, should be firmly fixed in a value system that is both "explicit" and "consistent."[16]

Conflict too has a distinct meaning. In Schelling's approach, it is no longer enough to beat your opponent. Instead, one must seize opportunities to cooperate. And in most cases, there are many. Only on the rarest of occasions, in what is known as "pure conflict," he points out, will the interests of participants be implacably opposed.[16] He uses the example of "a war of complete extermination" to illustrate this phenomenon.[16]

Cooperation, where available, may take many forms, and thus could potentially involve everything from "deterrence, limited war, and disarmament" to "negotiation."[16] Indeed, it is through such actions that participants are left with less of a conflict and more of a “bargaining situation.”[16] The bargaining itself is best thought of in terms of the other participant's actions, as any gains one might realize are highly dependent upon the "choices or decisions" of their opponent.[16]

Communication between parties, though, is another matter entirely. Verbal or written communication is known as “explicit,” and involves such activities as "offering concessions."[16] What happens, though, when this type of communication becomes impossible or improbable? This is when something called "tacit maneuvers" become important.[16] Think of this as action-based communication. Schelling uses the example of one's occupation or evacuation of strategic territory to illustrate this latter communication method.

In an article celebrating Schelling's Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics,[18] Michael Kinsley, Washington Post op‑ed columnist and one of Schelling's former students, anecdotally summarizes Schelling's reorientation of game theory thus: "[Y]ou're standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You'll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal—threatening to push him off the cliff—would doom you both? Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don't have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win."

Arms and Influence (1966)
Schelling's theories about war were extended in Arms and Influence, published in 1966.[19] The blurb states that it "carries forward the analysis so brilliantly begun in his earlier The Strategy of Conflict (1960) and Strategy and Arms Control (with Morton Halperin, 1961), and makes a significant contribution to the growing literature on modern war and diplomacy." Chapter headings include The Diplomacy of Violence, The Diplomacy of Ultimate Survival and The Dynamics of Mutual Alarm.

Micromotives and Macrobehavior (1978)
In 1969 and 1971, Schelling published widely cited articles dealing with racial dynamics and what he termed "a general theory of tipping."[20] In these papers he showed that a preference that one's neighbors be of the same color, or even a preference for a mixture "up to some limit," could lead to total segregation, thus arguing that motives, malicious or not, were indistinguishable as to explaining the phenomenon of complete local separation of distinct groups. He used coins on graph paper to demonstrate his theory by placing pennies and dimes in different patterns on the "board" and then moving them one by one if they were in an "unhappy" situation.

Schelling's dynamics has been cited as a way of explaining variations that are found in what are regarded as meaningful differences – gender, age, race, ethnicity, language, sexual preference, and religion. Once a cycle of such change has begun, it may have a self-sustaining momentum. His 1978 book Micromotives and Macrobehavior expanded on and generalized these themes[21][22] and is often cited in the literature of agent-based computational economics.

[TheDeamon]

So if the IPCC says they don't understand something, even if they go to great lengths not to admit it

It sounds very much like you are conflating media coverage and internet warriors with the IPCC.  How could the IPCC be going to great lengths not to admit something that they called it out in the very passage you quoted?

They mentioned it, then obfuscated the significance of it like nobody's business.

[DonaldD]

Since the interpretation of the IPCC authors does not match your preconceived notions, that amounts to obfuscation?

Also, you do realize that not being able to rule out "a significant role for microphysics in humidity response" in the upper troposphere does not mean that the current estimates are over-stated, correct?  It might mean that they are actually understated.

There are 5 main possibilities here:

• Net cooling, negligible in comparison to advection
• Net warming, negligible
• Neutral cooling/warming
• Net cooling, significant in comparison to advection
• Net warming, significant

I'm not making any claim about the likelihood of any one of these options, but only one of them might have any effect to cause the current trends to have been overstated.

To that point, however, the authors have already observed that advection has been shown to be the main distribution method for upper tropospheric humidity, and while they don't rule out that the humidity response resulting from the microphysical mechanisms might be significant, no significant climate signal resulting from such a mechanism has been observed to-date, notwithstanding that we have observed significant changes to solar radiation across a number of solar cycles in the satellite era (that being one of the posited microphysical mechanisms most often mooted).