tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post3276315600883417581..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: How Deep is this Result?Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-83108642167893330942010-05-23T22:20:34.797-07:002010-05-23T22:20:34.797-07:00Hi,
Thanks for pointing out Spencer Weart's b...Hi,<br /><br />Thanks for pointing out Spencer Weart's book, which I'll read as I find time. I very much appreciate that Weart's book is made freely available online. <br /><br /> -- William (the person who is the subject of this blog post).William Steinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09206974122359022797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-62638937035352995182010-05-15T20:59:27.088-07:002010-05-15T20:59:27.088-07:00So, ah, you opening a betting pool on this?
I'...So, ah, you opening a betting pool on this?<br /><br />I've noticed more appearances of older academic types who have just started looking into climate blogs, starting very skeptically, but who have good credibility with their colleagues and, if not offended and insulted right off the bat, can get past the loaded terms that set some of the anklebiters off too quickly (I may resemble that remark myself at times).<br /><br />So I'm gonna stick with my estimate. Love to see results.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80795844241366764172010-05-14T21:35:04.296-07:002010-05-14T21:35:04.296-07:00> The question was hypothetical:
> if he we...> The question was hypothetical: <br />> if he were to spend time, how <br />> much time would that be?<br /><br />Okay, I guess I'd time him on reading Weart's online book (more comprehensive than the paper one); add the time to look up whatever puzzled him in that (remembering he can email the author); then add, oh, 50-100 percent more time to that.<br /><br />Reading and comprehension are the critical things there; someone who stops at every statement and says Oh Noes Not the IPCC will run the meter way up and never learn. But anyone who's been known to read outside his field browsing say in Science and Nature for curiousity likely will do fine.<br /><br />So my guess is the number will be in hours, somewhere between 8 and 24 hours, all told.<br /><br />I've occasionally been called hopeful ....Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-9305093937921507732010-05-14T21:16:45.115-07:002010-05-14T21:16:45.115-07:00Excuse me for previously responding to a periphera...Excuse me for previously responding to a peripheral part of the subject.<br /><br />I think that it is a robust knowledge that the steady state response to CO2 doubling is likely to be between 1.5 and 6 degrees C. And it is enough to warrant policy action. I think that it is important for us to convince many people who have literacy in basic physics of this.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is desirable to reduce the uncertainty because of both reasons intrinsic to science and policy relevance. It is likely to require "deep" understanding on one hand, and somewhat expensive scientific enterprises on the other hand.<br /><br />The both example issues of ventilated thermocline and moist convection will considerably (though not definitely) be clarified by high resolution numerical modeling. And high performance compting is surely big (=expensive) science, but not so big among big science. Still it may be a science-techology-sociey problem that everyone cannot afford to reproduce the experiments. It is a larger problem how to supply observational data to check reality.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437041108856598560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66046573775091286802010-05-14T20:45:57.156-07:002010-05-14T20:45:57.156-07:00Unfortunately for us, from a viewpoint of obfusica...Unfortunately for us, from a viewpoint of obfusicators it is not necessary for the zero policy position to prove a low sensitivity, but it is enough making a public impression that all science about climate sensitivity is as junky as their soldiers'.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437041108856598560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54258764392806487962010-05-14T12:58:07.664-07:002010-05-14T12:58:07.664-07:00"The holist/reductionist dichotomy shouldn..."The holist/reductionist dichotomy shouldn't be a debate, I think. Clear thinking requires an array of tools; each tool and approach has its place." <br /><br />I absolutely agree, Michael. I also agree that everyone needs a <b>broad</b> knowledge of Earth System Science, to have the <b>deep</b> understanding required for a transition to sustainability. I have no more clue than anyone else how to get there.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-37153471613179859042010-05-14T12:45:32.450-07:002010-05-14T12:45:32.450-07:00Well, G&T is just incorrect, "stovepipe&q...Well, G&T is just incorrect, "stovepipe" or otherwise. <br /><br />Sorry, you hit a half-buried obsession of mine, obviously. <br /><br />The holist/reductionist dichotomy shouldn't be a debate, I think. Clear thinking requires an array of tools; each tool and approach has its place. <br /><br />At root, though, sustainability requires holistic thinking that is also rigorous. We don't have much experience with that; macroeconomics seems deeply flawed and nothing else seems to make the attempt. The old "general systems theory" doesn;t do it for me either.<br /><br />It's time for an Earth System Science, more or less as Francis Bretherton proposed, but it's not an easy question how to get there.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71184922109628566262010-05-14T12:18:56.555-07:002010-05-14T12:18:56.555-07:00Whew! Michael, I probably should have linked to Sy...Whew! Michael, I probably should have linked to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking" rel="nofollow">Systems <i>Thinking</i></a> rather than to formal Systems Theory. My exposure to systems thinking, in my MS-level Ecology coursework, was not very mathematical at all, nor was there much discussion of its history; rather, it was presented as a useful framework for thinking about complex natural systems, as a hierarchy of simpler ones interacting with each other to generate emergent phenomena. For me, it's a recognition that ontologically, the Universe isn't divided into departments, but needs to be understood as a dynamic whole. That's in contrast to the kind of stove-pipe thinking that can lead to <a href="http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html" rel="nofollow">Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009</a>. <br /><br />From my experience, the general inability to see how basic physical processes can give rise not just to climate, but to ecosystems and economies, explains why some denialist arguments, especially of the "what's the optimal temperature?" and "warming won't be so bad" categories, have been as successful as they have.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7758947597700684832010-05-14T12:05:01.144-07:002010-05-14T12:05:01.144-07:00No, as far as I know he hasn't spent any time ...No, as far as I know he hasn't spent any time on this. The question was hypothetical: if he were to spend time, how much time would that be?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-15232538868947526942010-05-14T11:46:42.536-07:002010-05-14T11:46:42.536-07:00How long did it take Bill to read Spencer Weart...How long did it take Bill to read Spencer Weart's history, if he did?<br /><br />(If he hasn't, is there a better place to start than that?)Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-58333263350295036342010-05-14T09:32:07.029-07:002010-05-14T09:32:07.029-07:00Um. Well, therein lies a tale.
While I've def...Um. Well, therein lies a tale.<br /><br />While I've definitely been influenced by many of the people mentioned in the Wikipedia article, I'm very dubious of von Bertallanfy, who I think was just a shallow imitator of Norbert Wiener. I think Wiener's dalliance with this crowd did not serve him well and actually contributed to the trivialization and eventual disappearance of cybernetics as a serious discipline.<br /><br />Wiener's legacy is everywhere in the hard sciences and engineering disciplines, but his name and achievements remain associated with wild handwaving and premature generalizations.<br /><br />I think that broad analogies across disciplines can be extremely useful, but I don't think that there are universal principles that can be applied to all systems. There are universal principles of continuous linear systems, which is what Wiener studied, but he was too easy to convince that the analogies to other systems would be easy to find. <br /><br />This is the tragedy of his forgotten legacy.<br /><br />Bateson and Mead were marvelous and brilliant human beings but they fell into physics envy and contributed to the <a href="http://pining.blogspot.com/2009/06/instituto-nobert-wiener.html" rel="nofollow">destruction of Wiener's reputation</a> as a significant figure in modern science.<br /><br />I wish I had time and skill to write a biography of Wiener from the point of view of someone who actually understands his substantive achievements. There are several biographies of him but they uniformly fall into the same trap WIener did.<br /><br />Anyway, to Mal's point, I don't think you can teach generalizations until you understand some instances. It's a very common didactic mistake, and one which I am very prone to myself. You need examples. The deeper the generalization, the broader the set of instances the student needs to have experienced. <br /><br />This all said, I would very much like to hear how Mal has been exposed to GST and how it affects his thinking. How mathematical is your exposure? DId the name Lyapunov come up?<br /><br />Please contact me via email or reply here. I am more than a little interested in how this material was presented to you, and by whom.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74731022743917693692010-05-14T09:12:50.988-07:002010-05-14T09:12:50.988-07:00Excellent post, Michael. The topic of just how mu...Excellent post, Michael. The topic of just how much a person needs to know, to apprehend the reality of AGW, comes up all the time in the blogosphere. As you point out, it depends on just how the question is posed, and on the motivation of the person asking the question.<br /><br />You say "the picture [of the serious consequences presented by GHG accumulation over the next century] could be conveyed to a scientifically educated person in a couple of weeks of serious concentration, perhaps just a few days if that person were familiar with some of the underlying physics."<br /><br />I agree that a "reasonable" (i.e. non-ideological, non-Dunning-Kruger-afflicted) person familiar with the underlying physics will readily grasp this much:<br /><br />- GHG accumulation means warming is happening, and will continue;<br />- A large fraction of the accumulating GHGs are anthropogenic;<br />- Positive feedbacks will amplify warming beyond that attributable to the primary forcing gases;<br />- AGW will progress for centuries, even if anthropogenic GHG emissions cease immediately.<br /><br />I'm not so sure that an understanding of basic physics, however, will lead to recognition of the <i>consequences</i> of AGW, for both human society and for biodiversity. I think that requires a knowledge of both economics and biology, and especially ecology, that goes beyond "a bachelor's degree in a serious mathematical science."<br /><br />The reason is that complex phenomena like climate and ecosytems are at least weakly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" rel="nofollow"><i>emergent</i></a> from simple physical processes. The character of much of the debate leads me to think that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory" rel="nofollow">General Systems Theory</a> isn't included in typical undergraduate science curricula. I didn't discover GST until the second year of my Master's program in Environmental Science, an expressly inter-disciplinary field. GST is indispensable for understanding how AGW leads to economic and ecological consequences. If it were routinely introduced in high-school or undergraduate science training, deniers would have less less to gain by monkey-wrenching any individual argument.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-85140005090684020452010-05-13T18:24:14.029-07:002010-05-13T18:24:14.029-07:00The problem is getting people to discriminate betw...The problem is getting people to discriminate between real science and the nonsense that is being tossed out, and called “science”. Cutting between the two requires a very sharp and well honed chisel. We get the science right, but often say it badly. They say things with emotional appeal but offer bad science.<br /><br />Most people do not have a framework of good science to hang climate science on. Thus, they tend to depend on how well the lesson is presented, to decide whether they will accept that bit as real science. Then, one good “pitch man” with the right voice tones and eye contact can undo all of your teaching. <br /><br />Or people go to the internet. Denialists on the internet learned their craft selling tobacco when most climate scientists were still just kids. Those guys know how to tell a story so people believe them. That is their job and they are good at it. When was the last time you met a climate scientists that had spent the last 30 years learning to be a better salesman?Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05150805906414546377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-19637034260557396992010-05-13T16:02:20.051-07:002010-05-13T16:02:20.051-07:00S, well, not as often as I'd like, but that...S, well, not as often as I'd like, but that's sort of the point of doing science. <br /><br />It isn't the money.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-59626707889321766902010-05-13T15:52:43.795-07:002010-05-13T15:52:43.795-07:00You have more interesting dinners than I do.You have more interesting dinners than I do.Steve Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11808202186253600821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54318638279574315432010-05-13T15:22:40.705-07:002010-05-13T15:22:40.705-07:00Here is a slightly longer than short argument, Glo...Here is a slightly longer than short argument, <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/unforced-variations-3/comment-page-12/#comment-168530" rel="nofollow">Global Warming, Decade by Decade</a> in which the first formula is missing a right parenthesis and ought to read<br />AE(d) = k(lnCO2(d-1) - lnCO2(1870s)) - GTA(1880s)<br />and for the doubters, blow them away by citing Tol, R.S.J. and A.F. de Vos (1998), ‘A Bayesian Statistical Analysis of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect’, Climatic Change, 38, 87-112, (h/t to James Annan).<br /><br />That won't do for the scary part. For that, read Mark Lynas's "Six Degrees".David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.com