Al Gore on 'climate crisis' : 'Worse than we thought'

[keith]

Inq was saying (I think) that it is possible to argue the logic of a complex argument that starts with "If A then B" without needing to know anything about A or B.

Which is partly the problem with rocks and tigers. At some point all logical (but not mathematical ) arguments become tautological since we assume our observations/opinions that inform A & B are valid. Unless you can establish that then 'if A then B' is as valid as 'if B then A'.

EDIT: I'll stick this in here. Since it is my problem with Inq's logic.

"The consensus of scientists is that man-caused warming is occurring and is dangerous, therefore, we should act on this consensus by taking measures to counter the perceived causes of global warming."

I have noted that logically the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, because it is possible that the premise is incorrect.

This is a basic error. An incorrect premise invalidates any and all logical arguments. Which is why simply stating that a premise is flawed doesn't count as a piece of logic chopping. You must establish why the premise is flawed.

[Inquartata]

So economics is not a science, it's...ahem...Voodoo?

It's two! two! two mints in one!

There are econometrists. There are experimental economists. ( Some even do lab experiments on rats and monkeys, just like "real scientists". )

But there is also a strong current of simple reasoning, and of testing expected outcomes without the use of math.

Heck, in my first econ class the professor explained that there were three ways to do economics: math, charts and graphs, and plain language.
( Though admittedly the language is often not all that plain. )

My current understanding is that memory and understanding are distinct processes.

Nevertheless.

Heck, I have even forgotten stuff I used to know about economics...

And that is true of EVERY science, and by your logic no conclusions could ever be drawn.

Nope. Because almost all other sciences, as I noted, have actually been able to see results of their hypotheses in the real world. There have been many, many things which have gone up and come down, confirming that gravity works. Many tests have been done which yielded concrete and documented results when certain chemicals are combined in certain amounts. But as yet we have not seen what happens when the human race attempts measures designed to counter man-caused global warming. The premises of the latter are still open to question, because they haven't been shown to have the results predicted. In many if not most other sciences, results have shown exactly the results predicted.

Admittedly, many times there were failures of predicted results instead, leading to the revision of the predictions until eventually they were gotten right. This is probably not possible with the grand predictions of The Consensus, however. Costs of the necessary "experiments" with the global climate system are not likely to allow of multiple revisions and adjustments, even should failures not prove disastrous in some unexpected manner. I don't know how many times we could sustain trillions of dollars of costs to change major human behaviors and have it not work, and say "Oh, well, let's try Plan B instead".

And so economists who suggest solutions to problems who cannot ever truly practically demonstrate their processes and outcomes should not ever promote policies...

Indeed, and the better ones don't. Or perhaps I should say the ones who concentrate on positive questions, rather than on normative ones...

Of course, some economists DO get to see their theories tested...and fail. And then see a new generation try 'em again, because they believe in the goals at which the theories were supposed to aim. Thus lord Keynes, for instance.

I'm not an economist, so I couldn't say if they were right or wrong...

But you could still attack their logical missteps!

What you can't do is make valid arguments without understanding the science because the assumptions you base your logic upon will be false.

That does not follow, I'm afraid. See, you're still assuming that some understanding of the science is needed in order to construct valid assumptions. It isn't necessarily so.

What you can't easily do is make valid arguments without understanding the science because the assumptions you base your logic upon will likely be false.

Ach! Still too pessimistic. And here I thought that you progressives were all about optimism!

[Inquartata]

Nothing.

Which is the point.

In what way is that "the point"?

It's just what I have been saying all along: I am not a science guy, I am not qualified to attack the science. But I am certainly capable of going and finding supportive evidence of an attack on the logic of a position from those who ARE capable of examining the science...

Logical arguement is dependent on the premises. There are many cases were one can disagree on the premises because they are subjective and/or not based on externally verifiable criteria.

In this case, though, it needn't even go as far as that. We do not know whether the hypotheses of The Consensus are "not verifiable", because they have never been tested in the first place.

Perhaps tests of counter-warming policies WOULD turn out to be accurate and useful. But we can't know until they are tried...and when we're dealing with something as large and complex and universally consequential as trying to deliberately alter the climate of a planet, the price of being wrong might be too high to sustain. Much less top sustain repeated tries of modified methods...

It's easy to trivialize this matter of consequentiality by saying that oh, if we had declined to test theory A in this other science we would never have gotten this swell and useful outcome/knowledge/technology/whatever. But if you're testing a chemical reaction, the worst you can do is blow up your laboratory. You don't risk blowing up the world ( so to speak ) along with yourself.

That makes logical arguement rather pointless,

Bah. Logic is never pointless. It is only thought to be so by those who have been pierced by, ah, a point.

but entertainment is not always dependent on a point.

Indeed. In fact, sometimes it is better without one.

The observations that different compounds/elements absorb light of different wavelengths and may then emit at another (including the infra red) is as close to objective as you can get. If you hold that they aren't

And where did I do that, again?

you are a solipsist

Hah, if I were, you probably wouldn't exist. I really don't need quite as many interlocutors as I have got in order to slake my thirst for arguments, you know!

I suspect that you, like many others, are not actually arguing against the science/observation that underlies the 'hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change'.

I thought that we had already established that I was arguing against the 'metaphor'.

Rather it's the implication of the hypothesis that you dislike. Which is why you have so little problem with pretty much any other hypothesis - none of those have obvious impacts on the everyday.

"You may be right; and certainly I cannot go so far as to say that you are wrong; but still!"

Actually, it's not so much the implications of the hypothesis being right at which I look askance. It's the implications of it being wrong...

[Inquartata]

The rub in this situation is that the more evidence part was provided. Logical debunking only goes so far....

But you see, you are still imagining that I am arguing against the evidence, when in fact I am arguing against the conclusion---in this case, that policies A, B and C should be pursued because of the premises.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that, of course, as what could be simple about something like the climate of a planet? There are many premises behind the conclusions of The Consensus. Some may be taken as "proven" by evidence; but others are little more than the result of ( necessarily ) inadequate computer models. If nothing else, GIGO raises its head there...

This is a basic error. An incorrect premise invalidates any and all logical arguments.

I see that ILS did well to ask whether we all know what 'logic' means.

Because with all due respect, you are incorrect on that point. In fact you have stumbled into the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam. Fallacious arguments do NOT always result in false conclusions, and arguments based on false premises are simply a subset of the set of fallacious arguments...

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...20ad%20logicam

[Hauptman]

Because with all due respect, you are incorrect on that point. In fact you have stumbled into the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam. Fallacious arguments do NOT always result in false conclusions, and arguments based on false premises are simply a subset of the set of fallacious arguments...

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...20ad%20logicam

Yeah!! Because we all know that even a stopped clock is right twice a day!!

You're in good company there, Inq.

[tchwojko]

Actually, it's not so much the implications of the hypothesis being right at which I look askance. It's the implications of it being wrong...

So why not look at both possibilities and weigh the consequences of each case? (Validity of the hypothesis and the efficacy of the proposed action vs. inaction)

So there are four basic possibilities:
1. The hypothesis (roughly, climate change is due to people) is correct, and we do "something".
2. The hypothesis is incorrect and we do "something".
3. The hypothesis is correct and we do nothing.
4. The hypothesis is incorrect and we do nothing.

You seem to be saying that we can't be sure that the hypothesis is correct, therefore we should do nothing because doing "something" is certain to have a cost.

Before I write a longer post, Inq, can you adjust the above if I have misstated anything?

[Inquartata]

So why not look at both possibilities and weigh the consequences of each case? (Validity of the hypothesis and the efficacy of the proposed action vs. inaction)

This was kind of what I did waaay back when I said that another possible outcome of reversing global warming is to actually cause the long-term, cooling trend to restart and even accelerate. IMO the consequences of even a mild glaciation would be far more disastrous, long-lasting and difficult to reverse than those of a few degrees of warming.

Remember this, from that history of climate science by Weart?

"Greenhouse warming and other human influences seemed strong enough to overwhelm any natural trend. One environmental scientist, William Ruddiman, even argued that the rise of human agriculture had already counteracted the gradual cooling that should have come during the past several thousand years in the normal descent from a post-glacial temperature peak. As emissions climbed exponentially, we might not only cancel the next ice age, but launch our planet into an altogether new climate regime."

So---let's say we reverse that. We are unlikely to be able to exercise fine control over the process, and let's say we are TOO successful and we do restart a natural cooling trend...

Heck, let's say we only increase snowfall and grow the glaciers again. From my slender understanding of the science, this increases albedo, correct? Which further decreases the greenhouse effect, which causes more cooling, which causes more snow and glaciation, which increases albedo, which...?

So---there, despite my own intentions there's a fingernail of that "alternate theory" everyone has been so keen to have me present. Feel free to demolish it.

You seem to be saying that we can't be sure that the hypothesis is correct, therefore we should do nothing because doing "something" is certain to have a cost.

More precisely, doing something is not only certain to have a cost, but an incalculable cost, due to the law of unintended consequences. Inasmuch as incomplete computer models cannot even capture all of the complexities of a global climate system, I fear that the unintended consequences would be commensurately complex...

In the worst case, "doing something" might well not only have enormous implementation costs, and incalculable costs from unforeseen and unintended consequences of policy actions, but species-threatening costs if more than a few components of The Consensus should prove to be wrong, or that ice age speculation should turn out to be right.

[tchwojko]

This was kind of what I did waaay back when I said that another possible outcome of reversing global warming is to actually cause the long-term, cooling trend to restart and even accelerate. IMO the consequences of even a mild glaciation would be far more disastrous, long-lasting and difficult to reverse than those of a few degrees of warming.

The problem of climate change isn't a matter of a few degrees of warming, but a positive-feedback loop where a few degrees more will in turn increase the greenhouse effect etc.

So---let's say we reverse that. We are unlikely to be able to exercise fine control over the process, and let's say we are TOO successful and we do restart a natural cooling trend...

With respect, this is where I believe your lack of knowledge of the science kicks in. There are several reasons why the above statement is incorrect (I think). I'll let others who can explain better fill in that gap.

Heck, let's say we only increase snowfall and grow the glaciers again. From my slender understanding of the science, this increases albedo, correct? Which further decreases the greenhouse effect, which causes more cooling, which causes more snow and glaciation, which increases albedo, which...?

I believe there are other effects which prevent the spiral in that direction.

So---there, despite my own intentions there's a fingernail of that "alternate theory" everyone has been so keen to have me present. Feel free to demolish it.

When I have more time, I'll respond more fully.

More precisely, doing something is not only certain to have a cost, but an incalculable cost, due to the law of unintended consequences.

I studied chaos theory for a while. It's not a law as much as a guideline.

Inasmuch as incomplete computer models cannot even capture all of the complexities of a global climate system, I fear that the unintended consequences would be commensurately complex...

In the worst case, "doing something" might well not only have enormous implementation costs, and incalculable costs from unforeseen and unintended consequences of policy actions, but species-threatening costs if more than a few components of The Consensus should prove to be wrong, or that ice age speculation should turn out to be right.

So going back to the four possibilities, your position is (roughly):

1. Climate change is correct, we do "something" and we may be saved.
2. Climate change is incorrect, we do "something" and we may be doomed.
3. Climate change is correct, we do "nothing" and we may be doomed.
4. Climate change is incorrect, we do "nothing" and we're just fine.

Is that fair?

[Inquartata]

I'd add a fifth: It's correct, we do nothing and we're still fine. I mean, according to The Consensus we've already warmed beyond any historical precedent, and yet...

[tchwojko]

I'd add a fifth: It's correct, we do nothing and we're still fine. I mean, according to The Consensus we've already warmed beyond any historical precedent, and yet...

By definition that would make it incorrect, since it predicts a runaway process.

[Inquartata]

Does it? I thought I remembered reading that there is a spread of opinion as to exactly how much warming was to be expected, depending on conditions. The "runaway" camp was, as I recollect, a vocal minority.

Lessee, from the Wiki entry on the IPCC report:

"There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises (excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow[5])for each scenario family.

* Scenario B1
o Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
o Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
* Scenario A1T
o Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
o Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
* Scenario B2
o Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
o Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
* Scenario A1B
o Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
o Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
* Scenario A2
o Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
o Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
* Scenario A1FI
o Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
o Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)"

But again, I'm no expert on the state of The Consensus. I just scurry off and research tidbits at need. Feel free to enlighten me.

[tchwojko]

Lessee, from the Wiki entry on the IPCC report:

I prefer the original over Wikipedia: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...mperature.html

[Inquartata]

Meh, the "Press Information" is probably more my speed, but still, I see

"An expert assessment based on the combination of available constraints from observations (assessed in Chapter 9) and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in the models used to produce the climate change projections in this chapter indicates that the equilibrium global mean SAT warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C. For fundamental physical reasons, as well as data limitations, values substantially higher than 4.5°C still cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations and proxy data is generally worse for those high values than for values in the 2°C to 4.5°C range. The ‘transient climate response’ (TCR, defined as the globally averaged SAT change at the time of CO2 doubling in the 1% yr–1 transient CO2 increase experiment) is better constrained than equilibrium climate sensitivity. The TCR is very likely larger than 1°C and very unlikely greater than 3°C based on climate models, in agreement with constraints from the observed surface warming."

This is "runaway"?

Oof. I have been at this all day. I'm going to bed!

[tchwojko]

This is "runaway"?

Oof. I have been at this all day. I'm going to bed!

No, it's not. My mistake. I think I understand your position now. Thanks.

[tchwojko]

Lessee, from the Wiki entry on the IPCC report:

By the way, reading the IPCC report there's an interesting section that basically says that Africa is screwed.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...-7-africa.html

2 to 4 degrees Celcius doesn't sound like a lot, but according to this report it'll have significant impact. This is also only looking forward one century.

If your reference was meant to indicate that climate change ain't so bad, it failed.

[Inquartata]

No, that was not my assertion. It was only that given a choice between the predicted effects of that much warming and an ice age, I think just about anyone would want to take the warming...

Either would be bad, but glaciation would be much worse.

[tchwojko]

No, that was not my assertion. It was only that given a choice between the predicted effects of that much warming and an ice age, I think just about anyone would want to take the warming...

Either would be bad, but glaciation would be much worse.

1. I don't see anything in that report about glaciation. (I may not have found it yet. Let me know if you found it in there.) Warming is also preferable to the moon crashing into the earth. I don't see how it's relevant to the probable near (100 year) future.

2. When you say "glaciation", what specifically do you mean? Cooling 1° to 4° C?

3. How are you judging the practical effects of glaciation (as per the definition you give to answer #2) to compare with the probably effects of warming?

[Inquartata]

1. I don't see anything in that report about glaciation.

Well, of course not. Can't expect a report from a group that's all "It's here, it's clear, get used to it!" about warming to present any predictions about cooling, can you? That's like expecting to find a Papal bull expressing doubt about the existence of god!

Warming is also preferable to the moon crashing into the earth.

Indubitably.

I don't see how it's relevant to the probable near (100 year) future.

We aren't actively considering any actions that might cause that, either. Even accidentally.

When you say "glaciation", what specifically do you mean? Cooling 1° to 4° C?

Again, I am not a hard science guy. I don't know how much it would take, or even if it's possible. I only know that just as respectable scientists in the field think we're warming now, respectable scientists in the field thought we were cooling 40 years ago ( holy crap, now I feel old ). Reverse the conditions that have changed their minds, and maybe it's cooling again...

How are you judging the practical effects of glaciation (as per the definition you give to answer #2) to compare with the probably effects of warming?

Well, the effects of warming are all in the news, so we know about those: submerged islands and coastal regions, shifts in agricultural regions/deserts/tropics, no more polar bears, etc. A glaciation would mean ice sheets over much of the industrialized world, eg northern US and Canada, much of Europe and Britain, Russia, and so on; temperate zones would also shift, only there'd be much less water for agriculture, since it'd be locked up in glaciers; enlarged deserts; etc.

And if man-caused warming killed most of human industrial civilization, which I don't think anyone is predicting, then the warming stops, and I should think in a few centuries the effects start to reverse. What's left of mankind survives. But if an ice age does the same to civilization, that doesn't reverse anything. We have it for millennia, probably...and I don't know if that's survivable.

[Bayou Bum]

Did any of you click through to the Time article from the Washington Times "Water Cooler" blog?

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...956932,00.html

Arctic ice is thinner than predicted from satellite imagery. This should be seen as worrying.

"Climategate" should impact the reputations of the scientists involved. It does not invalidate observations made by other scientists.

This is a published observation from a scientist being reported -- not a politician being a windbag (or producing a documentary). Dismissing it with a "Denying much, Mr. Gore?" does nothing.

You should feel free to personally investigate the ice in the Arctic and report back, though. I'll wait.

I took your advice and went to check on the Arctic ice and report back. Unfortunately I wasn't able to finish my trip because we got stuck in the ice!

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/0...den.ice.ships/

Thirty to forty ships stuck!

[Inquartata]

Obviously, that was photoshopped. There can be no ice!

The Power of Global Warming compels thee!