Have you epistemologically analyzed your understanding of global warming? If so, how?

Question

Dr. Blob: Kindly note that this question is posted to "Yahoo! Answers," not to "Yahoo! Challenges to Refute Without Using Any Cornucopian or Theistic Gobbledygook."

I found the following (esp. pp. 88 et seq.) apropos to this question:
http://books.google.com/books?id=u-g1ud3ZtfkC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&source=web&ots=C0e_UokzCM&sig=M2NYd21PLJeah8efXjkCDORdXPE#PPA89,M1

Dr. Blob: I'm not trying to challenge your answer; I'm trying to understand your answer. As near as I can tell, your understanding of global warming is based on a general sort of environmental fatalism that really isn't posited upon climatology but seems to rely on a more fundamental basis of a broad-brush application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the earth. I say that because your description appears to pertain to man's interaction with the earth's environment generally, not global warming specifically. Of course, I welcome any clarification you might offer. By the way, I found the above linked reference after consideration of your answer.

Dr. Blob: I certainly applaud anyone who undertakes "the long arduous task of reorganizing my life so that my actions can align with my values." I realize that many of the views I express on Y!A are unconventional, and I heartily encourage a "marketplace of ideas" where exposure to myriad ideas can hopefully motivate many others to think critically and review their values so that they might begin to undertake similar realignments of their actions. Otherwise, any changes you or I might make on our own remain dwarfed by the actions of six billion others. Thank you for your answer, although I'm still seeing your beliefs about global warming to be more of an offshoot of a personal ecological transformation than a sui generis topic.

Answer 1

Yes if you are defining epistemological as in a dictionary. To the limits of what is known about climate, atmospheric physics, and radiative transfer, no known radiative forcings other than those produced by the increase in the radiatively active trace species can account for the observed warming over the period from approximately 1980 to 2005 without resorting to either entirely speculative, empirically unsupported, or physically unrealistic hypotheses about how the known physical processes work. That what is known presently about climate physics etc. represents a nearly entire set of all possible knowledge of climate physics is demonstrated by the ability of climate models using best available physics to simulate past climatic events and the observed warming over the past 25 years.

If you have some wacky theory of epistemology and what it means, then all bets are off.

Answer 2

Yes, I have.

It is easier to explain my skeptical position by 'epistemologically' analyzing the global warming arguments.

I have many years of experience in computer modeling. When I first started, we called it mathematical modeling.

Models break down for two reasons.

First, the parameters that the models depend on are quantified inaccurately. The inaccuracies pile on as the model is extrapolated past the data that the model was constructed on.

Second, the parameters describing the subject are not completely understood.

The global warming modelers use past data that has been 'constructed' because it wasn't scientifically collected at the time. Even data that has been carefully collected by today's standards can be in error(e.g. NASA's satilite temperature data). To assume we know what the temps were 100, 500, and 1000 years ago is just silly.

We don't even know all the parameters that affect climate and we don't understand how they interplay.

When they talk of half degree rises over 50 years, I just laugh.

Answer 3

Epistemology states that truth is the intersection of knowledge and belief. I have knowledge and experience which allows me to study the information in context and use this information to determine the most relliable, believable sources.

I keep an open mind, look at LOGICAL arguments presented by both sides, place this new information into the context of what I already know, find reliable qualified persons and models to fill in any gaps in my information and thereby reach a conclusion. Along the way I also discover who is trustworthy and unbiased, and who isn't.

Do you do it? How do you do it?

Answer 4

Yes I have, constantly. I started from square one many years ago on day one of my climatology degree course. Instead of picking up abstract snippets here and there and attempting to write the science to fit them, I spent many years peicing together a complex climatological jigsaw and not until a clear picture emerged did I form any opinions about global warming.

The climate jigsaw is a complex one, many people on here think they've got the full picture but in truth, most of their pieces are still in the box. Some, who purport to know what they're talking about, haven't even put the edge pieces together yet.

My jigsaw isn't complete, it never will be. There are some peices missing, probably never to be found. Undoubtedly I've got some bits in the wrong place and a few stray pieces from other jigsaws have got mixed in. But I have more than enough of the picture to discern for myself what's happening.

As a scientist I'm always re-evaluating what I've learned, at the same time I'm listening to and learning from others, revisiting what we already know, looking for the things we don't know, improving, developing, progressing; that's how science works and evolves.

Answer 5

Wow, cool question. I'm going to have to think about this. My gut reaction is that I haven't epistemologically (long word!) analyzed my understanding of global warming. I think I use logic to evaluate information on global warming. You know, the suppositions of writers and studies, what type of foundational analysis are they basing their conclusion on, what is the extent and validity of the claims of different authors and sources. But can we use this method to evaluate someones understanding? Understanding of a topic is by its very nature subjective. It can be based on facts, but we all use our own filter to understand and draw conclusions.

Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge. It's about how we investigate questions about existence and knowledge and ethics. It examines HOW we come to understand. I'm not sure it can explain WHAT we understand. That can be as simple as a binary process. Do we accept/deny a long list of data about a particular issue, in this case global warming.

Anyway, let me think more and I may come back to post more. Really good points from all the previous posters too.

Answer 6

I constantly do. I think to myself 'okay, here's what I think I know'. Then I research scientific sources to see if what I think I know is correctly based on scientific evidence. If I hear new information, I research its scientific accuracy before adding it to my scientific understanding of the issue.

To briefly address Jello - his claims are completely absurd. The terms he refers to are probabilities in a scientific context. For example, in the IPCC report the term "more likely than not" refers to a greater than 50% probability that a statement is correct. You can see the definitions of these terms at the bottom of page 3 here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf

This is how science works. There is never 100% certainty about anything, so scientists ascribe a probability to each unknown (and often a word to a certain probability range, such as 'likely'). The fact that the IPCC was able to conclude with over 90% certainty that humans are the primary cause of the current warming is actually quite remarkable. In fact, 'very likely' (greater than 90%) is the greatest possible certainty they can ascribe to any conclusion.

Jello's evidence that global warming science is subjective actually disproves his point, because attributing a probability to one's claims is actually a very objective process.

Answer 7

Absolutely. Have you? I can sum it up nicely.

Humans absolutely and unequivocally are impacting the environment. Any rational analysis of that impact will show it to be - on balance - negative.

The earth is finite. We use the biosphere as an open ended sink from which we extract resources are return waste. Eventually resources will be exhausted and the biospheres ability to absorb our waste and regenerate will be degraded to the point it will no longer function.

I challenge you to refute this without using any cornucopian or theistic gobbledygook.

edit:
Ahh, I see you’re not above challenging it with rhetorical gobbledygook. On a lighter note, I read your answers with great interest. Hence, my challenge.

edit2:

It’s clear from your other answers that you have a right / libertarian slant, or pretend to have one. Rather than ignore this and just show another view for readers to consider and make their own judgments, I am using the rhetorical technique of turning the question back on the questioner. I post here with the specific intent of refuting the arguments of anti-environmentalists.

Regarding how our knowledge informs our behavior, I went through the all the stages of environmental grief many years ago. In this context "Acceptance" means doing what you are capable of regardless of whether you think it will make a difference.

My behavior is informed as directly as possible from my knowledge. Very, very simple. Man’s interventions in the world are not going well. I could ignore this but it leads to great psychological stress, for reasons explained above. So I have no choice but to begin the long arduous task of reorganizing my life so that my actions can align with my values. Incredibly difficult to do in the western world.

What interests me sincerely is how the same knowledge can inform your behavior (apparently) so differently than it does mine.

Again, to what conclusion have your own epistemological analyses lead you?

Tragically, for you personally as well as the world generally, I don't think you've thought this through completely.

Why am I challenging you? Check out Fred's answer here.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asr9_GqMRkYZdVuQizOU_t3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071114070632AApF1Oy&show=7#profile-info-vC7t8rxOaa

edit3:

Just read your response. Please consider my answers as sincere. I appreciate your feedback.

edit4:

In short, yes, you are partially correct. If I thought the current science of climatology to be suspect, I would investigate it further. In all my readings of the arguments pro and con, the skeptics have not produced any (to my mind) compelling counter arguments. This quote sums up my position.

“The concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by man has risen significantly during the historical record and it is absolutely known (by reproducible, verifiable lab experiments on the physical properties of these gases) that these gases cause warming by absorbing the outgoing radiation from the earth. The skeptics have not produced any evidence that this rise in the greenhouse gas concentrations occurred by some natural process and they have also failed to explain how all the industrial emissions could have been absorbed by some natural process during the recent historical period. There is no way to explain the observed greenhouse gas concentrations without human interference, and there is no credible way to claim that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has not caused a warming of the Earth’s surface. While there are other natural processes at work and while the climate system is highly complex, trying to discount the role of human involvement in recent climate change is speculation and opinion, not science.” - Asher Siebert.

To me, the most productive analysis begins with a framing of the problem. What are the logical extremes possible? The answer lies somewhere in between. The earth is finite. We cannot get around the fundamental limits imposed by thermodynamics. Whether it happens in one year or 1000 years we will reach the limit. Working backwards from that point, what can we do to prevent the catastrophic collapse that is inevitable if we run right up to that point without contingency? E.O. Wilson calls this the “bottleneck”. A narrowing caused by the limits of resources and the limit of the biospheres ability to regenerate itself.

I consider Global Warming to be just one more symptom of the overall environmental degradation we currently experience. I don’t need “absolute” proof. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence is good enough for me. Of which, I believe, we have. In any case, I would consider it circumstantial guilt by association.

Again, Global Warming is not a problem unto itself; it’s just one more symptom of the larger problem. I always frame my answers from this perspective. We must consider it from the larger perspective of population and the overall environmental impact of our actions. Just as one person alone in a sea of 6 billion cannot solve this problem, attacking one symptom alone in a sea of interrelated problems won’t solve it either.

As others have stated, it probably won’t even be the one that gets us. Acceptance informs our behavior. Let’s do what we can while we still have time.

I have exposed my rationale, would you consider returning the gesture?

edit 5:
Pardon me for showing poor form when I presumed your intent. To answer your question directly:

I am an empiricist, not a philosopher. What I can see and hear and touch is truth to me. If we build something and it works, that is truth. I can't "see" an atom, but I "believe" in particle physics because we have atomic bombs and nuclear energy. We built the machines that put the 100 million year old carbon into the atmosphere. I can see the graph from Mauna Loa. I can hear the stories from the Inuit and the Laplanders. I can see that the predictions of science align with the effects we experience. I can see with my own eyes what we are doing to the planet. What more to the truth of Global Warming is there? I would have to ignore a lifetime of experience to come to a different conclusion.

Answer 8

So called 'global warming' cannot pass the epistemology test. The science is not objective.

This is why there needs to be a consensus, and not objective facts, and to support the "facts" that global warming is real, qualifiers like "could", "probably", "likely", "may", "believed" always proceed any statement of "fact" about global warming.

Add to this the fact that scientist who work on global warming have admitted to resorting to extreme and unrealistic scare tactics as a way to draw attention to the issue of "global warming" and the truth now is buried by the agenda and political belief of the speaker.

"Global warming" cannot pass any epistemological test as the science is subjective, not objective.