RE: Climate Change: A "Catastrophic" Flaw In The Discourse
Great write up! I really enjoyed reading this. Question about global cooling:
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[2]
(via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling, emphasis mine)
It seems much of your argument here for the concern relating to global cooling (which seems to be a counter balance to the concern for the global warming discussion) relies on taking a stance that the global cooling science was sound. Even the "overpowering" comment related to a 10%-30% number which was later determined to be more accurately around 3% (thus, not "overpowering" but still "significant") seems to do the same thing: assume scientific findings were accurate, even if they were later improved which significantly changed the story.
I agree with your conclusion that we should have better control over our environment if we want to exist as a species beyond what would normally take us out. I also think there are some concerns with the logic involved, as you've pointed out. One post on Skeptical Science, as an example, explained a problem via changes in the earth's orbit around the sun but then dismissed similar arguments for a different problem. There may be valid climate science reasons to treat these things differently in different situations, but I'm clearly not qualified to know what they are. 50 years is a very short time period, for sure. All we can do is make decisions with the data we have, and balance the confidence in those decisions based on the known unknowns. What may end up biting us are the unknown unknowns. :)
Thanks again for a great write up.
Nope, sorry about that I know the article is long, so I definitely don't judge for missing this, but the support for my claim that global cooling is a threat came only from the article NASA published in 2013. It has nothing to do with past arguments for global cooling. I didn't even look at those. If you disagree that global cooling is a threat you have to take it up with NASA, I have no opinion on the matter other than my belief that credible climate scientists should be listened to.
Your analysis of the 3% v. 10%-30% appears faulty as well. "3%" is a probabilistic measure, it is not a measure of impact. That is like saying, "If a weatherman reduces their estimate of a class 5 hurricane striking down to 10% if the hurricane were to hit it would only have the impact of a Class 1 hurricane. Changing the probability of an even is not causally connected to the nature of the event.
In other words, one study reduced the probability of global cooling occuring down 3% chance that the effect will be overpowering. That admittedly is smaller, but still significant. In addition, you are simply choosing to believe that the 3% number is more reliable than than the 10-30%. There is not perceptible explanation for this other than personal opinion. Scientifically valid studies should be presumed to be equally as probable unless a flaw in the methodology has been proven. In addition, such probabilities are extremely problematic in that they are extremely hard to prove. The truth is: we don't know how likely we are to experience global cooling AND we don't know how likely we are to experience global warming AND we don't know the precise magnitudes of the impact those events are likely to have were they to occur.
I guess I'm asking for clarification. It seems you highlighted the "overpowering" potential of the sun but the NASA article clarified (to me, anyway) that it would have been overpowering if it was 10%-30%, but their own data showed it was actually only 3%. It said things like "Much has been made" and "this is, however, speculative" and "there is (controversial) evidence." I guess my take away from that article wasn't so clearly that "NASA believes global cooling is a threat" based on the sun's activity (though it may very well be one).
Thanks again.
Edit: to highlight my point, this is from the description of the paper referenced on the NASA website:
I guess I'm more hesitant to say there's a conclusion if the paper itself says there's no conclusion. But I guess that still fits if we're talking about NASA's interpretation. So much of this revolves around perspectives of language. Funny how often that happens. :)
Well, first let's clarify that the NASA article is a composite of the work generated by a panel of climate scientists. NASA makes no claim in the article. Sorry, my claim to take it up with NASA was misleading. It seemed apparent to me that NASA was certainly not disagreeing with the findings of the panel, but technically you are right, NASA remained impartial. The clear conclusions of the climate scientists on those panels was that we should continue studying the effects of the Sun on our climate because the effects could be large, our understanding is quite limited, and acquiring the right data is extremely difficult. There is no indication that because one study found the risk to be 3% that they are abandoning the idea and that it is not a risk worth considering. That is extraordinarily bad science.
To be honest this seems like very clear confirmation bias. You're going through an article (created by an extremely popular government agency with a respected track record) the entire point of which is that the risk of global cooling is real and finding any scrap of evidence that supports the narrative that one shouldn't worry about it which is not a conclusion anyone in the article comes to. You generate that conclusion from the appearance of an apparently small probability which has nothing to do with potential impact and no one claims to be a definitive number. There is NOT a 3% of global cooling. There is one study which claims the probability is 3%. That is statistically significant. It appears that by first presenting the 10-30% number you were primed to perceive 3% as small. It is not. If there was a 3% chance you were going to die tomorrow you would be pretty worried. That being said, no one is claiming that the odds of global cooling are definitely 3%. Only you are. That is significant evidence of confirmation bias.
The only point I am making is that the risk of global cooling is real. Either I am being guided by confirmation bias or you are (I suppose the odds are 50/50 ;) ), but there is not a single point in that article which makes the claim that we shouldn't be worried about this risk and numerous points that indicate we should and yet you came to the former conclusion.
So far still not seeing any proof that either the logic I employed or the science I presented is faulty.