Climate science versus nutrition science

I tend to view them in a similar way. I see both dealing with very complex systems with countless variables that are hard to tease out, and some variables take s long time to produce effects. Variables can counter act each other, etc.

And nutrition science shows us long held views can still change because real world results are what counts.

And I consider both to be “young” sciences relative complexity. I think there are likely still a lot of surprises in store for both sciences.

That doesn’t mean I think they are fundamentally wrong, or flawed. It just means I might lean on the current prevailing science view of both, as it’s the best we have, but I do not lean too heavily, until time and repeated outcomes remove reasonable doubt.

Here is an article on how vitamins are mostly useless, yet it’s a billions dollar industry.

Do vitamins and supplements work? Doctors say no

Simpletruther said:

I tend to view them in a similar way. I see both dealing with very complex systems with countless variables that are hard to tease out, and some variables take s long time to produce effects. Variables can counter act each other, etc.

And nutrition science shows us long held views can still change because real world results are what counts.

And I consider both to be “young” sciences relative complexity. I think there are likely still a lot of surprises in store for both sciences.

That doesn’t mean I think they are fundamentally wrong, or flawed. It just means I might lean on the current prevailing science view of both, as it’s the best we have, but I do not lean too heavily, until time and repeated outcomes remove reasonable doubt.

Here is an article on how vitamins are mostly useless, yet it’s a billions dollar industry.

Do vitamins and supplements work? Doctors say no

Click to expand...

nutrition is very simple

Crovax said:

nutrition is very simple

Click to expand...

But not the science

Simpletruther said:

I tend to view them in a similar way. I see both dealing with very complex systems with countless variables that are hard to tease out, and some variables take s long time to produce effects. Variables can counter act each other, etc.

And nutrition science shows us long held views can still change because real world results are what counts.

And I consider both to be “young” sciences relative complexity. I think there are likely still a lot of surprises in store for both sciences.

That doesn’t mean I think they are fundamentally wrong, or flawed. It just means I might lean on the current prevailing science view of both, as it’s the best we have, but I do not lean too heavily, until time and repeated outcomes remove reasonable doubt.

Here is an article on how vitamins are mostly useless, yet it’s a billions dollar industry.

Do vitamins and supplements work? Doctors say no

Click to expand...

Thoughts

Simpletruther said:

I tend to view them in a similar way. I see both dealing with very complex systems with countless variables that are hard to tease out, and some variables take s long time to produce effects. Variables can counter act each other, etc.

And nutrition science shows us long held views can still change because real world results are what counts.

And I consider both to be “young” sciences relative complexity. I think there are likely still a lot of surprises in store for both sciences.

That doesn’t mean I think they are fundamentally wrong, or flawed. It just means I might lean on the current prevailing science view of both, as it’s the best we have, but I do not lean too heavily, until time and repeated outcomes remove reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

Interesting POV. We are all familiar with how nutritional recommendations change and some of that is driven by the "popular press" and a push to oversimplify complex topics that people will be very interested in.

Yeah, science IS always changing and adapting to new information as it should. But considering that AGW is predicated on some pretty basic extremely well characterized science it is unlikely that one day the world's climate experts are going to say "oh, wow...all that warming we saw in the last 60 years, that's not a thing!"

There's a lot of discussion around some of the estimates of things like climate sensitivity of a given greenhouse gas, the effect of cloud cover in models etc. But given the fact that the general consensus that AGW is both real and a serious concern hasn't really shifted much in the last 40 years and the original hypothesis goes back more than a century I wouldn't count on the "vagaries" of science coming to our rescue anytime soon. I think we'll end up having to do some heavy lifting and dealing with a lot of uncomfortable truths.

So definitely keep hoping that the world's climate scientists are all just guessing, but don't bank on it.

istodolez said:

Interesting POV. We are all familiar with how nutritional recommendations change and some of that is driven by the "popular press" and a push to oversimplify complex topics that people will be very interested in.

Yeah, science IS always changing and adapting to new information as it should. But considering that AGW is predicated on some pretty basic extremely well characterized science it is unlikely that one day the world's climate experts are going to say "oh, wow...all that warming we saw in the last 60 years, that's not a thing!"

There's a lot of discussion around some of the estimates of things like climate sensitivity of a given greenhouse gas, the effect of cloud cover in models etc. But given the fact that the general consensus that AGW is both real and a serious concern hasn't really shifted much in the last 40 years and the original hypothesis goes back more than a century I wouldn't count on the "vagaries" of science coming to our rescue anytime soon. I think we'll end up having to do some heavy lifting and dealing with a lot of uncomfortable truths.

So definitely keep hoping that the world's climate scientists are all just guessing, but don't bank on it.

Click to expand...

Never said they were guessing. Obviously they base this on real science, but I think the possibility of unknown factors is pretty high, just like with nutrition science.

And it’s been warming for several hundred years, it’s just picked up a bit lately.

I will have more confidence after several accurste 50 year predictions, the same way I get confident in other sciences, though accurste predictions, we haven’t had that yet. But sadly, at the time scales involved, I will be long gone by then.

Simpletruther said:

Never said they were guessing. Obviously they base this on real science, but I think the possibility of unknown factors is pretty high, just like with nutrition science.

Click to expand...

I doubt that there are huge number of "unknowns" in this discussion. (Certainly not enough to alter the overall concept per se). Yes, there are some disagreements but the core science is reasonably solid.

And it’s been warming for several hundred years, it’s just picked up a bit lately.

Click to expand...

Let's break this down a bit. Let me put on my historical geology hat for a sec.

One of the things climate skeptics like to bring up is the fact that the earth's history is littered with swings in climate. Which is true! But just because it has changed before doesn't mean that this current change isn't somehow due to human activities. In fact we have a LOT of solid data pointing directly to human activities as the primary driver for climate change over the past 50 or so years.

But if we look at the geologic record we do see times when the climate was warmer or cooler etc. You say it's been "warming for several hundred years"...well, technically speaking that's a dodgy claim. We are coming out of an ice age, yes, and at least in the Cenozoic the ice ages were largely kicked off by Milankovich Cycles which is related to the precession and obliquity of the earth's orbit. But interestingly enough we _should_ be heading back into another ice age. But we aren't. We appear to be late...and it is highly likely that we actually WON'T get the next scheduled ice age because forcings due to human activities are large enough to overcome the cooling associated with the next ice age.

The field of Paleoclimatology is focused on not only understanding how the climate was different in the past, but in many cases what CAUSED IT. Luckily for us we know a LOT of what is causing this current warming. In previous periods in Earth's history warming could be caused by massive influxes of volcanic gases (like some have hypothesized for the End Permian Event) or due to changes in ocean currents due to differences in locations of continental land masses. But we know what is causing the warming today with a pretty high degree of certainty (there are a number of attribution studies to this effect).

I will have more confidence after several accurste 50 year predictions, the same way I get confident in other sciences, though accurste predictions, we haven’t had that yet. But sadly, at the time scales involved, I will be long gone by then.

Click to expand...

The climate models, while imperfect, have actually done a pretty good job overall. They usually use things like "hindcasting" to determine how accurate the model is and the results are usually pretty good. They take starting conditions from some point in the past and run the model to see how it compares to the data we KNOW.

My favorite one that really gets the point across is this one from the IPCC WG1:
Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes — IPCC



Figure 12.7 shows a comparison of hindcast models in which they compared the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE data from 1850 to 2000 with models that included only natural forcings and then models that also incorporated human activities. You can see that the model really reproduces the actual temperature data pretty well.

But NASA has a more recent paper showing that climate models are doing pretty well HERE

Right now the science looks pretty solid.

Simpletruther said:

I tend to view them in a similar way. I see both dealing with very complex systems with countless variables that are hard to tease out, and some variables take s long time to produce effects. Variables can counter act each other, etc.

And nutrition science shows us long held views can still change because real world results are what counts.

And I consider both to be “young” sciences relative complexity. I think there are likely still a lot of surprises in store for both sciences.

That doesn’t mean I think they are fundamentally wrong, or flawed. It just means I might lean on the current prevailing science view of both, as it’s the best we have, but I do not lean too heavily, until time and repeated outcomes remove reasonable doubt.

Here is an article on how vitamins are mostly useless, yet it’s a billions dollar industry.

Do vitamins and supplements work? Doctors say no

Click to expand...

Not a bad analogy, the real difference is that the science of nutrition, is open minded to accept that their long held beliefs
can be wrong, when the evidence show otherwise.
In climate science, that do not show Man is the major cause of warming, have trouble getting published.
The theory that added greenhouse gasses can force some warming, looks solid, the secondary idea of AGW, that
the forced warming will act as an input to a feedback system to create much additional warming, is unverified.

istodolez said:

I doubt that there are huge number of "unknowns" in this discussion. (Certainly not enough to alter the overall concept per se). Yes, there are some disagreements but the core science is reasonably solid.



Let's break this down a bit. Let me put on my historical geology hat for a sec.

One of the things climate skeptics like to bring up is the fact that the earth's history is littered with swings in climate. Which is true! But just because it has changed before doesn't mean that this current change isn't somehow due to human activities. In fact we have a LOT of solid data pointing directly to human activities as the primary driver for climate change over the past 50 or so years.

But if we look at the geologic record we do see times when the climate was warmer or cooler etc. You say it's been "warming for several hundred years"...well, technically speaking that's a dodgy claim. We are coming out of an ice age, yes, and at least in the Cenozoic the ice ages were largely kicked off by Milankovich Cycles which is related to the precession and obliquity of the earth's orbit. But interestingly enough we _should_ be heading back into another ice age. But we aren't. We appear to be late...and it is highly likely that we actually WON'T get the next scheduled ice age because forcings due to human activities are large enough to overcome the cooling associated with the next ice age.

The field of Paleoclimatology is focused on not only understanding how the climate was different in the past, but in many cases what CAUSED IT. Luckily for us we know a LOT of what is causing this current warming. In previous periods in Earth's history warming could be caused by massive influxes of volcanic gases (like some have hypothesized for the End Permian Event) or due to changes in ocean currents due to differences in locations of continental land masses. But we know what is causing the warming today with a pretty high degree of certainty (there are a number of attribution studies to this effect).



The climate models, while imperfect, have actually done a pretty good job overall. They usually use things like "hindcasting" to determine how accurate the model is and the results are usually pretty good. They take starting conditions from some point in the past and run the model to see how it compares to the data we KNOW.

My favorite one that really gets the point across is this one from the IPCC WG1:
Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes — IPCC

Figure 12.7 shows a comparison of hindcast models in which they compared the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE data from 1850 to 2000 with models that included only natural forcings and then models that also incorporated human activities. You can see that the model really reproduces the actual temperature data pretty well.

But NASA has a more recent paper showing that climate models are doing pretty well HERE

Right now the science looks pretty solid.

Click to expand...

There is a reason that the forcing models track well with the observed temperatures!
The forcing warming, is about all the greenhouse gasses are capable of!
The net of all the feedbacks, appears to be near zero.
Yet without feedback warming, AGW is just an interesting observation, since the forcing warming for doubling the CO2 level
is only about 1.1C.

istodolez said:

I doubt that there are huge number of "unknowns" in this discussion. (Certainly not enough to alter the overall concept per se). Yes, there are some disagreements but the core science is reasonably solid.



Let's break this down a bit. Let me put on my historical geology hat for a sec.

One of the things climate skeptics like to bring up is the fact that the earth's history is littered with swings in climate. Which is true! But just because it has changed before doesn't mean that this current change isn't somehow due to human activities. In fact we have a LOT of solid data pointing directly to human activities as the primary driver for climate change over the past 50 or so years.

But if we look at the geologic record we do see times when the climate was warmer or cooler etc. You say it's been "warming for several hundred years"...well, technically speaking that's a dodgy claim. We are coming out of an ice age, yes, and at least in the Cenozoic the ice ages were largely kicked off by Milankovich Cycles which is related to the precession and obliquity of the earth's orbit. But interestingly enough we _should_ be heading back into another ice age. But we aren't. We appear to be late...and it is highly likely that we actually WON'T get the next scheduled ice age because forcings due to human activities are large enough to overcome the cooling associated with the next ice age.

The field of Paleoclimatology is focused on not only understanding how the climate was different in the past, but in many cases what CAUSED IT. Luckily for us we know a LOT of what is causing this current warming. In previous periods in Earth's history warming could be caused by massive influxes of volcanic gases (like some have hypothesized for the End Permian Event) or due to changes in ocean currents due to differences in locations of continental land masses. But we know what is causing the warming today with a pretty high degree of certainty (there are a number of attribution studies to this effect).



The climate models, while imperfect, have actually done a pretty good job overall. They usually use things like "hindcasting" to determine how accurate the model is and the results are usually pretty good. They take starting conditions from some point in the past and run the model to see how it compares to the data we KNOW.

My favorite one that really gets the point across is this one from the IPCC WG1:
Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes — IPCC

Figure 12.7 shows a comparison of hindcast models in which they compared the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE data from 1850 to 2000 with models that included only natural forcings and then models that also incorporated human activities. You can see that the model really reproduces the actual temperature data pretty well.

But NASA has a more recent paper showing that climate models are doing pretty well HERE

Right now the science looks pretty solid.

Click to expand...

I don’t trust hind casting so much. It opens the door more for bias in constructing or resting upon models that happen to fit the hindcast.

Forecasting takes this bias pit of the equation. But again not enough time has passed to have a strong history of forecasting.

Not to mention, in hindcasting, we have to rely on proxy data from the past, which isn’t as reliable as today’s satellite data etc.

I'm going to address this point:

istodolez said:

One of the things climate skeptics like to bring up is the fact that the earth's history is littered with swings in climate. Which is true! But just because it has changed before doesn't mean that this current change isn't somehow due to human activities. In fact we have a LOT of solid data pointing directly to human activities as the primary driver for climate change over the past 50 or so years.

Click to expand...

The largest factor I see that isn't properly addresses it the solar changes and time lag of the solar-ocean-atmosphere coupling. This is on the order of a century for 70% equalization. Now consider these factors:

The sun has largely increased in TSI from 1713 to 1958 by more than 0.24% using the average of various studies. I say more than, because 0.24% is the average starting at 1750.

Longwave from the sun changes insignificantly, but the shortwave and UV spectrum changes by about double what the TSI is.

The oceans are rather transparent to the shortwave spectrum, but absorb the longwave withing a few microns of the surface, about half of that evaporates, taking much of that heat with it.

Since the shortwave is mostly absorbed, and only a small amount reflected, the ocean absorbs almost all of this energy change, heating the ocean.

Starting around the 40's, industrialization significantly took off, reducing the isolation. This would easily mitigate any solar heating of the earth system, and even cool the earth if the sun wasn't increasing.

In the 70's, the USA and other first would nations started to have concerns about pollution, and made great efforts to clear the skies. Interesting how the people pushing the AGW agenda love to use temperature increases since around 1980...

Using a 70% ECS for the coupling from the sun as I indicated, the math comes out the the year 2004 will be the ECS peak effect of the suns 1958 peak, with no other variables changing.



I made that graph using TSI data from the SORCE website.

Yes, our activities on this planet affect it. The problem I see is that the sun is rationalized to be insignificant when it is the source of all the earths heat, outside of the insignificant radioactive materials and tidal forcing.

Here is another graphic I edited soon after the AR4 came out:



I assume you recognize the image, as it is one of the common ones out there. I used a lower value of only 0.18% of a solar change. Notice that the direct change at the surface from the sun is at 0.3 W/m^2. The AR4 listed the sun's "direct" forcing change at 0.12 (0.06 to 0.30) W/m^2. They used the lowest of solar studies for their numbers, when again, the 1750 to modern years average is around 0.24%... and they say nothing about the lag.

Anyway, they claimed CO2 at 1.66 W/m^2, other greenhouse gases at 0.98 W/m^2. How would they have to change the numbers if this 0.93 W/m^2 represented by my edited graphic were true? How about even more if the sun change by the 0,24% or more?

The point I am making is that AGW is not as strong as claimed. They have to leave out other variables to get their results.

Hey istodolez...

A question for you.

Do you understand, in full, what RE (radiative efficiency) and GWP (Global Warming Potential) is?

Do you agree or disagree that they are a good metric to use?

longview said:

Not a bad analogy, the real difference is that the science of nutrition, is open minded to accept that their long held beliefs
can be wrong, when the evidence show otherwise.
In climate science, that do not show Man is the major cause of warming, have trouble getting published.
The theory that added greenhouse gasses can force some warming, looks solid, the secondary idea of AGW, that
the forced warming will act as an input to a feedback system to create much additional warming, is unverified.

Click to expand...

Follow the money

Simpletruther said:

I don’t trust hind casting so much. It opens the door more for bias in constructing or resting upon models that happen to fit the hindcast.

Forecasting takes this bias pit of the equation. But again not enough time has passed to have a strong history of forecasting.

Not to mention, in hindcasting, we have to rely on proxy data from the past, which isn’t as reliable as today’s satellite data etc.

Click to expand...

Bump

istodolez said:

I doubt that there are huge number of "unknowns" in this discussion. (Certainly not enough to alter the overall concept per se). Yes, there are some disagreements but the core science is reasonably solid.



Let's break this down a bit. Let me put on my historical geology hat for a sec.

One of the things climate skeptics like to bring up is the fact that the earth's history is littered with swings in climate. Which is true! But just because it has changed before doesn't mean that this current change isn't somehow due to human activities. In fact we have a LOT of solid data pointing directly to human activities as the primary driver for climate change over the past 50 or so years.

But if we look at the geologic record we do see times when the climate was warmer or cooler etc. You say it's been "warming for several hundred years"...well, technically speaking that's a dodgy claim. We are coming out of an ice age, yes, and at least in the Cenozoic the ice ages were largely kicked off by Milankovich Cycles which is related to the precession and obliquity of the earth's orbit. But interestingly enough we _should_ be heading back into another ice age. But we aren't. We appear to be late...and it is highly likely that we actually WON'T get the next scheduled ice age because forcings due to human activities are large enough to overcome the cooling associated with the next ice age.

The field of Paleoclimatology is focused on not only understanding how the climate was different in the past, but in many cases what CAUSED IT. Luckily for us we know a LOT of what is causing this current warming. In previous periods in Earth's history warming could be caused by massive influxes of volcanic gases (like some have hypothesized for the End Permian Event) or due to changes in ocean currents due to differences in locations of continental land masses. But we know what is causing the warming today with a pretty high degree of certainty (there are a number of attribution studies to this effect).



The climate models, while imperfect, have actually done a pretty good job overall. They usually use things like "hindcasting" to determine how accurate the model is and the results are usually pretty good. They take starting conditions from some point in the past and run the model to see how it compares to the data we KNOW.

My favorite one that really gets the point across is this one from the IPCC WG1:
Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes — IPCC

Figure 12.7 shows a comparison of hindcast models in which they compared the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE data from 1850 to 2000 with models that included only natural forcings and then models that also incorporated human activities. You can see that the model really reproduces the actual temperature data pretty well.

But NASA has a more recent paper showing that climate models are doing pretty well HERE

Right now the science looks pretty solid.

Click to expand...

If it's true that we may avoid a next ice age due to climate change, that is a vastly better outcome than the negative effects of ice age wouldn't you agree?

As bad as climate change may get, it would seem to be dwarfed by the horror of an ice age.

Simpletruther said:

If it's true that we may avoid a next ice age due to climate change, that is a vastly better outcome than the negative effects of ice age wouldn't you agree?

As bad as climate change may get, it would seem to be dwarfed by the horror of an ice age.

Click to expand...

Bump

Simpletruther said:

Bump

Click to expand...

Sorry I do not think we have the capability to put enough greenhouse gases in the air to prevent another ices age.
While the mechanisms are not entirely understood, estimates of the temperature difference since the LGM range from 4 to 6C.
We are roughly 85% of the effects of a CO2-equivalent doubling, and have only warmed about 1C.