Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 Next
Comments 119851 to 119900:
-
skepticstudent at 14:02 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Tom re 133, Sorry sir, I was simply responding to I believe it was Marcus's comments on CO2 and plants. I get so excited some times that I forget to go looking for other blogs, as do many here apparently by the plethora of challenges to my comments. :-) -
Marcus at 14:00 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
"trees are growing back in exponential numbers in the rain forests where man has farmed and over harvested for years." Again, SS, cite your source for this claim or stop making this claim in a repetitive fashion. I've done extensive reading on Rainforest ecology, & have read *nothing* about this miraculous regrowth. Indeed, the amount of CO2 contributed by deforestation is continuing to rise unabated, something which wouldn't be occurring if this miraculous regrowth of forest were truly occurring. -
Tom Dayton at 13:57 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcus, your response would be an excellent addition to the thread CO2 is not a pollutant. Will you please post it there? Perhaps then your comment here will be deleted, thereby helping bring this now-chaotic thread back somewhat on track. -
skepticstudent at 13:57 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I am not sure where to post this next question. If anyone has any ideas I'll repost it and it can be deleted from here. I am positing it here because this letter which is the focal point of this thread discusses several things including the need to do something now in order to avoid the crisis. I have been doing some serious thinking as to whether or not I could be wrong. This ability is the pinnacle of Critical Thinking and ipso facto proof positive in the lack of a Dunning Krueger issue. I have a question as to the reality and effectiveness of the global warming scare. I continuously use ACGW rather than AGW as Mal Adapted and others use because the seat of the entire global warming issue is the supposed direness of it, so I always use Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming. Let us assume that the IPCC and other scientists are correct on the side of the warmists, and that 30 billion tonnes (European spelling) of CO2 which equates to roughly 2ppm per year in to the atmosphere. (As proposed by the IPCC not me.) So that puts us roughly give or take plus or minus at 15btn’s per ppm. (30 divided by 2 is 15 on either side of the issue) It is proposed that by 2101, (the beginning of the next century) the total CO2 output (by man or otherwise) will be roughly 468ppm and at 7trillion tonnes, and will cause a 7degree F increase in temperature by that time. Now if you take away the forcings and feedbacks that the warmists (not intending to be ad-hominem in nature I am just trying to avoid the use of the term alarmists as that seems ad hominem in nature) The beginning range that the warmist agrees on is 1 degree C increase by 2024, if you start adding the forcings and feedback by some warmist theory it should be as high as 20 degrees not 1 but let’s just go with the base 1 degree. So in the very nature of mathematics if you are talking a 7 degree F increase for 7 ttns it would be logical I believe to say that for 1 degree there would be 1ttns. If you were to divide 1ttn by 30btn’s it would take roughly 33 years without any CO2 for a 1 F degree drop in temperature. (I’m strictly going off accepted numbers from both the skeptic side and the warmist side.) Now would that really be possible without destroying virtually every nation on the planet and forcing mankind to live in deep underground tunnels and caves? Forcing a strict law forbidding trucks from delivery of goods to consumers (such as food staples etc…), forcing a strict law against airplanes from flying. All for 1 degree decrease in temperature? (or even 7 degrees F if you strictly follow the IPCC) Does this even seem reasonable given the IPCC’s own numbers. We would have to remove every human being from the planet for 33 years, stop all driving or flying. No hospitals, no factories in America or third world nations. Well that would go without saying as without humans who would drive or fly, who would need hospitals, who would be able to work in factories? Oddly enough I never see a discussion of this nature on this or any other warmist blog or website. I would have to ask why? Those numbers are pretty common knowledge, the math is not that difficult. I figured it out and I’m not the best or brightest of Mathematicians (I will gladly confess that I am no Steven B. Hawking or Albert Einstein). John I'm sorry this is so long but I didn't know where to break it up without losing the flow. -
Marcus at 13:56 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Another point, SS, is that I suggest you read Guns, Germs & Steel. It points out very clearly how-& why-agriculture independently arose in only a very narrow band around the equator (around the Mediterranean & in Central America especially). Though agriculture is robust enough to survive somewhat outside of these *ideal* conditions, it does strongly suggest that the agriculture's tolerance for above average temperatures is limited-especially when coupled with low rainfall. If you don't believe me, then might I suggest you spend some time out here in Australia, & see first hand what years of global warming have done to hundreds of farming families. Sure, some have managed to hang on & eke out a living from the land, but it gets harder with every year. This fate will almost certainly be shared by farmers in many other parts of the world, but still the contrarians bury their heads in the sand. -
Marcus at 13:49 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Actually SS, as someone who *works* in the field of agricultural science, I've read a number of peer-reviewed papers which show the negative impacts of both increased CO2 & increased warming on the metabolism of many common crop plants (wheat, barley, sorghum, corn especially). The most common problem is that warming temperatures increase senescence-which leads to a decline in biomass. Problem # 2 is that increased CO2 concentrations lead to an increase in vegetative biomass-but a decline in seed biomass. Increased CO2 concentrations have also been shown to decrease the uptake of nitrogen & zinc-as well as other trace nutrients-by crop plants, thus making the plants less nutritious for humans or animals. Other studies have highlighted how many of the plants most suited to warmer, high-CO2 environments are classified as weeds, which will make agriculture more energy intensive. So you can see that there are many good reasons why humans shouldn't be pumping out so much CO2 & warming up our atmosphere. -
Tom Dayton at 13:33 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, I've answered your challenge about CO2's effect on plant growth in the comments on this thread: CO2 is not a pollutant. If you want to further discuss that topic, please do so on that thread. -
Marcus at 13:29 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@ Mark R. The story I refer to is the Global Climate Coalition-an organization disbanded in 2002. An internal document from 1995-obtained via a court action-claimed, & I quote: "The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change. Jastrow's hypothesis about the role of solar variability and Michaels' questions about the temperature record are not convincing arguments against any conclusion that we are currently experiencing warming as the result of greenhouse gas emissions. However, neither solar variability nor anomalies in the temperature record offer a mechanism for off-setting the much larger rise in temperature which might occur if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases were to double or quadruple." For the source, go here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics & read the section on "Skeptics Group Discounts Skeptics Arguments". Indeed, the entire article is great reading. -
Rob Honeycutt at 13:17 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... I'm actually trying to make a positive contribution to your efforts. If you go out and collect signatures from all those scientists attached to a statement (as Glieck has done) then you're going to have something substantial that even the folks here would have to seriously consider. -
Mal Adapted at 13:06 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
SkepticStudent@109: Heh, heh, that was quite a riff! We can see you're smart, now if you get humble, too, you'll be capable of learning something. I've got high hopes for you 8^)! -
skepticstudent at 13:04 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I was going to follow up to Mal Adapted's comment on Phil Jones but I think enough has been said about that email. I not only have lived in the Pacific Northwest for 30 years and in Alaska but I have followed temperatures throughout the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world. I've always been fascinated by Meteorology. In fact one of my best friends of many years is a retired scientist who worked for the US Weather bureau for over 30 years as a senior meterologist. Also one would assume from the second half of my name I am a student, not just from the school of hard knocks but of the collegiate level. Also if you're saying that all the contributors have been working on ACGW since it's inception of study in the late 50's I would like to see the background on every contributor here. I don't think that's neccessary as it's not very probable. I don't think one needs to have studied ACGW since the 50's in order to make a statement. If that were the case you would have to destroy this thread as it is focused on a scientific paper co authored by the senior author who happens to be a rock star. I'm sure he's very intelligent in his career (I for instance can't read a lick of music or play a guitar so I bow to his musical intelligence). -
skepticstudent at 12:56 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
74 Mal I'm assuming you are refering to the fact that the more one believes their story with gusto the more they are to have a stronger faith in their belief which continues in a looping effect? I'm assuming that you are trying to share the psychology of Cognitive adaptation and critical thinking skills rather than saying I'm totally bereft of emotional intelligence or critical thinking skills because young man if the latter were true that would be an Ad Hominem attack against me and well we know those are against the rules here. That wouldn't apply because I've put in countless hours of research and I'm not a skeptic because of any lunacy or hocus pocus belief system. So..... moving on -
skepticstudent at 12:52 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
regarding 51 Marcus and 74 Mal First of all like I said yesterday, I am fairly new here.I thought part of the fun of discussion was if you don't agree with what the other side says go research what they are saying and perhaps gleen insite into something new. My fingers have been flying looking up information as offered by the other side. Hmm well I promised Mr. Cook that I would keep my responses brief so I shall endeavor to do so. I would challenge Marcus on comments to plants needing a perfect environment to grow as nature and plants have been growing for eons without the help of mankind. Secondly I would challenge you to let your fingers do the walking of several collegiate Agriculture web sites and see what they have to say about pumping the equivalent of several thousand ppm of CO2 into their greenhouses because it helps the plants grow faster and heartier for sale. Even if man is the predominate cause of CO2 trees are growing back in exponential numbers in the rain forests where man has farmed and over harvested for years. Because the trees were cut down and there was an abundance of co2 locally the tree growth is growing explosively, I'll leave it to you to research that one. to save space in my comments -
HumanityRules at 12:41 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Does anybody know how many were asked to sign? -
johnmacmot at 12:38 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Your posts are repetitive, Poptech, and as has been pointed out, your lists have no weight when examined closely. The Oregon Petition, for example, has no credibility. It's discussed on this site here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm and here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html There are a number of thorough debunkings elsewhere too, but if you wish to roll that out as significant document, you will need to persuade people here that all the analysis is wrong. That will take a lot more evidence than you have been producing so far in your posts. -
Ron Crouch at 12:07 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Like Tom I too would like to see this ""gathering evidence that low climate sensitivity may instead be the case". Especially when the latest study concludes that climate sensitivity to CO2 has been understated by 30-50%. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:33 AM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@Poptech... None of what you're saying, though, suggests that any of these people buy into YOUR perception of the issue. Your list is your subjective selection of what you think fits your criteria. In that it is not very compelling. On the other hand, when you have 255 NAS scientists stepping up to the plate to sign a very strong and clearly worded statement, this is something that should be taken extremely seriously. If you wrote up a clear statement and then were able to get a large number of reputable scientists to put their names to it, then you might have something serious to crow about. -
Jeff Freymueller at 11:26 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
#100 johnd, I don't understand your point about land use effects multiplying forever. Plants take up CO2 as the grow, then release it again as they die (except for the small fraction of organics that get buried and geologically sequestered). You can't keep counting the loss of takeup unless you also keep counting the loss of release. Suppose you have a piece of land with forest, having a lot of woody mass. You burn the forest and pave over the land with concrete; no plants grow. You have released the C in the trees into the atmosphere, and the land is out of the carbon cycle. No plants there take up CO2 as they grow, but none release any as they die, either. After you account for the forest, the land has no further effect on the carbon cycle at all. If you burn down the forest and replace it with crops, the crops take up CO2 as the grow and release it every year. You count the woody carbon of the trees as a contribution to atmospheric CO2 and the yearly cycle is about a wash. On the other hand, if you plant a forest where there used to be cropland, you start to sequester carbon in the woody mass as the trees grow -- a net reduction in atmospheric CO2. In the very long term, of course, all the trees die and decompose, so its really net change in carbon mass of trees and other plant matter that counts. But of course we are changing things on a timescale that is short compared to the complete turnover of a forest. But however you count it, you only get a trend in CO2 from land use changes if there is a trend in land use changes. Or were you getting at something else? -
HumanityRules at 11:21 AM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
184.chris Apologies I read the supplementary data on the 2008 paper then I had Mann’s 2009 paper in mind when he described the MWP as regional based on pretty much the same data set. I guess I struggle with how he makes a call on the SH in that paper or how anybody makes a call on the SH to be fair. I don’t think I’m trying to trash anything just put the science on a level playing field. You drag out the figure of 1200 data sets in Mann’s paper but fail to mention that only a small subset of these stretch back to the MWP. Paleoclimate research has many limitations, often highlighted by the scientists, which seem to be dragged out for Loelhe and ignored for Mann in your complete story. 186.chris My position on this particular subject would be there is no whole story. There is a science in development and competing ideas. It’s only the political drive of the IPCC that demands the certainty of a whole story. 189.chris Are all the knobs constrained or even understood? “the evidence indicates that this hasn't "stopped"” - except the evidence of energy measurements in the ocean. Which obviously must be wrong. You call for the total story, link to papers which highlight issues with the ocean heat content data but fail to list papers that highlight issues with the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere data sets. The recent email exchange on Pielke snr website was enlightening. Josh Willis the co-ordinator of the Argo bouy data acknowledges past issues with the data, does not rule out further small corrections but seems confident the data is now robust. Where is this in your complete story? On your last point I’m not sure how Loelhe can be held responsible for how others use and interpret his work. Which seems to be the drive of the link. It seems bloggers who are obsessed with their tax dollars are those most in favour of political interference, I’ve no real interest in what they say. I’ve read several ‘denier’ blogs that are raging against Cuccinelli going after Mann. On the environmental extreme there are those that want to see ‘climate denial’ as a crime against humanity. Appeals to political interference and calls for politics to be removed from climate science can be heard on both sides of the debate. That’s the more complete story! You claim moral authority by demanding the ‘whole story’ but you are as selective as you accuse me of being. -
Tom Dayton at 09:53 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd, perhaps you'd like to provide a source for your contention that there is "gathering evidence that low climate sensitivity may instead be the case." The appropriate thread would be Climate sensitivity is low. -
johnd at 09:48 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Dikran Marsupial at 04:35 AM, despite your detailed analysis concluding "it is arguably the mainstream that is concentrating on the basics there" it seems that the mainstream have hitched their horse to the wagon that is based on a foundation of a high climate sensitivity. Not only is this most important pivotal question unresolved, not that you would think so given the strength of the assertions all dependant on a high climate sensitivity scenario, but it is increasingly appearing to be wrong with gathering evidence that low climate sensitivity may instead be the case, some such evidence soon to be published. -
Albatross at 09:48 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I would like to add my support to those NAS scientists who have spoken out on the repeated attacks on science, and climate scientists in particular. They should also be commended for drawing attention to AGW and explaining the dangers and underlying principles to the general public. NAS, as a whole, supports the reduction of GHGs to minimize the impacts of AGW (including ocean acidification) See also for another statement on AGW which was released by NAS in 2007 -
wanderers2 at 09:33 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
tobyjoyce@97, Just a personal pet peeve of mine. The word "data" refers to a collection of multiple measurements, while "datum" is a single measure. So proper English expression should be: The first question a statistician asks is "How were these data gathered?" It is increasingly common usage I know...it just bugs the heck out of me to see it used on science blogs...you will seldom see this in scientific literature. Other than that I appreciate your comment. -
johnd at 09:13 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Dikran Marsupial at 04:52 AM, there are several aspects to land use change. Plants and soil account for about 100Gt of carbon in and out each year, the oceans about the same, therefore given there is about twice as much area covered by oceans than land, one acre of land is worth twice as much as one acre of ocean in terms of it's ability to sequester carbon. When land use changes are made, there may be a one off release of carbon, but over and above that a certain percentage of land will be permanently withdrawn from the carbon exchange cycle, so the one off loss continues to multiply forever. At least fossil fuels can only be burnt once and will eventually be exhausted. With regards to the amounts of carbon released, 155Gt through land use, 320Gt through burning fossil fuels, 220Gt since 1960, even though some has been sequestered, it can be said that there is either 155Gt or 320Gt or even 475Gt more carbon in the atmosphere today than if either or both practices had not occurred. Obviously if all burning of fossil fuels completely ceased today, 6.5Gt of carbon will stop being put into the atmosphere annually, but that won't count for anything if the 100Gt exchange in and out between the plants, soil and atmosphere continues to decline, especially if more land is permanently removed as a carbon sink. -
omnologos at 08:10 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
oops...please read "It was NOT because of 'extensive peer review'" -
omnologos at 08:10 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
#55 Stephen Sullivan Please google "Reg Sprigg" and "Martin Glaessner" to understand how did the scientific community (and Nature magazine) finally came out of the consensus that animals had appeared before the Cambrian. It was because of "extensive peer review", rather because of Glaessner's fame and reputation and his chance interest in some fossils in the Charnwood Forest. The work of Elkanah Billings and Georg Gürich was evidently not enough, however self-evident it appears to us: the whole story of the Ediacaran fossils remind us that scientific consensus is at times overturned not by evidence, but by authority. -
embb at 07:06 AM on 9 May 2010Are we too stupid?
To sum up my problem with the article: 1. Any taxation on CO2 emissions must be globally respected to be viable. Otherwise it will be nothing more then a harakiri of the states that implement it. 2. The game theoretical models presented in the article do not apply because of the following: 2.1 The rewards of defection are immediate and measurable in hard cash while the rewards of cooperation are highly theoretical are nothing more then the "saving the planet in 100 years". Moreover the defector can still benefit from the defection AND the hypothetical saving of the planet. The game theoretical models are all in a context where reward and punishment are both immediate and tangible. Try the prisoners dilemma with the twist that cooperation does not get you out of prison but a priest will tell you that your soul will go to heaven. I am not really curious about the result - seems to be obvious. 2.2 If defection is so tempting there is one way of making this work, which is a global police force ( "indirect reciprocity" is a nice euphemism for it, but in reality we are talking about swift punishment of defection in a way that will hurt. In the end the vision is of a powerful coalition of states who are convinced that they are right and will force their vision on everyone else. You may call this any number of fancy technical names, it is a world police state. Are we too stupid to implement this? I sure hope so. -
embb at 06:55 AM on 9 May 2010Are we too stupid?
Jacob:How do you explain the international stop for leaded gasoline, CFCs, DDT, thalidomide, phthalates, asbestos etc.? You honestly see no difference between banning a chemical and deliberately making the countrie's industry uncompetitive?? Jacob:Can you prove there was no reciprocity involved? Does it not involve negotiated treaties between states? Sure, it works as long as there is no serious incentive to defect. Jacob:You did not understand that a small cluster can eliminate all defectors by growing bigger. OPEC? Non-proliferation? Strange that you did not react to those cases, right? Somehow the small groups missed the opportunity to eliminate defectors. Any ideas why? Jacob:Not according to the EPA. So, you think that decreasing the amount of CO2 in a neighborhood increases the quality of life in that neighborhood? That people will be willing to have a CO2 free neighborhood? Surely not. Jacob:Second, there are also both immediate and future health effects of climate change. I think you mix up weather with climate. As we get to here at every cold spell the weather is NOT the climate. Jacob:Do you think voters favor cash in return for a destroyed planet? Yes. If they didn't you would not be thinking about game theory. Jacob:How about diversifying the sources instead? What is it exactly about biofuels, windmills, solar power, geothermal heat etc. that you oppose so much? Nothing, I do not. We were talking about game theory and just for the record I do not oppose game theory either :) Jacob:So you argue for the preservation of the status quo because the proposed reforms may be imperfect? That is why I conclude that you have an interest in not mitigating climate change Jacob, do you support geo-engineering? If no, why not? Just because the solutions might be imperfect? Jacob:Trade war based on science is infinitely less harmful than real war based on dangerous nationalistic issues. There was no war that was not started with these arguments, in the last millenium. It will be short and sweet and by the time the leaves fall all will be settled, right? Jacob:If the trade war solves the problem due to the fact that reciprocity works to eliminate defectors, then how can you possibly oppose it? Because it is stupid and uncontrollable and can easily end up in a real war. War is war and it is bad. People actually die in trade wars too if you haven't noticed. So, in the end this is where all the game theory ends up? You might have spared yourself the effort. -
tobyjoyce at 05:55 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @82, Let me quote the great British statistician D.R.Cox, who is still writing and teaching in his 90s: The first question a statistician asks is "How was these data gathered?". Indeed, the Royal Statistical Society made a submission to the House of Commons enquiry on "Climategate" with some criticisms of the CRU methodology. It was all very fine, but did not make much difference - the correct methodologies gave the same results. Of course, the Daily Mail, a notorious denialist publication, trumpeted "Report criticises faulty methods of climate scientists!", leaving the key facts to the lower paragraphs. That is a good example of what the letter is warning about. From my own observation (as another statistician), the physicists have been teh key players in working out the physical models of how CO2 affects climate. The statisticians are useful adjuncts in getting the data analyses correct. -
Ron Crouch at 05:24 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
"It also may be a folly to assume the Dunning-Kruger effect only exists at one end of the spectrum, (or on one side of the debate) and not throughout, even at times amongst those who consider themselves the elite of their profession." From my own perspective as a layman I would make the assertion that it's not a case of "may be folly" but a case of "is folly". As far as the integrity of scientists is concerned, well there are scientists and then there are scientists. I mean James Hansen is a reputable scientist in his own right. So is Dick Lindzen. Both are quite accomplished but I view the integrity of both in a different light. I have no quarrels over the peer reviewed literature of either, but I question the ulterior motives of Mr. Lindzen based upon his professional associations. I apply the same scrutiny to all professionals. For me it's a "blind faith" issue. The persecution of Michael Mann and others is both absurd and dangerous. It simply reminds me of McCarthy style witch hunts or even the persecution of Leonardo. Dangerous because if allowed to continue it opens the door for the extreme right to openly attack any piece of science that is not conducive with their philosophy. I've heard the hockey stick thing bashed many times in the past, but I must come to it's defence. I'm sure many have made this observation in the past, but I'll make it again. It seems rather odd that the temperature record from 1880 till present matches fairly well the population growth pattern since 1800 (which to me is a reasonable time frame for discussing climate trends, the past decade or two is insufficient for drawing conclusions due to the inherent variability of the various Earth systems). I'm not trained in the sciences, but logic on it's own dictates that there is a strong correlation between rising temperatures and the growth of population since the Agriculural and Industrial Revolutions. Before this time frame it is unlikely that world population levels had that much of an effect on the environment. -
shdwsnlite at 04:54 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
# RSVP - "Anthropogenic means "caused" by humans. Technically, this is a misnomer, in that it implies that if you are a human, you are causing this problem. In reality, it is use of machinery that is supposedly causing global warming. Machines and fuels that are the result of applied science." So humans are not the cause but the machines they created are. I wonder if I could use that line of reasoning elsewhere? "But officer, you can't arrest me. Yes I was holding the gun that killed him. The gun though is the result of applied science so that is the cause of his death not me." -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:52 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @ 91 Much of that 155Gt will have been taken up by the environment, not all of it will stay in the atmosphere (only about 45%). Land use changes *were* the dominant form of until about 1960, when cumulative fossil fuel emissions overtook cumulative land use emissions. To put the land use emissions into context, so far fossil fuel emissions amount to some 320 GtC, judging from the plot on my desk, about 220 GtC of which was emitted since 1960. None of that is controversial, and the IPCC are perfectly aware of it, so I am not sure where your evidence is that it has not been getting the appropriate attention. If you look at a plot of cumulative fossil fuel emissions and cumulative land use emissions, fossil fuel emissions are increasing exponentially, while by comparison land use change emissions are rising almost linearly by comparison. That is more than enough reason to focus on fossil fuel emissions, as it means that in the future fossil fuel emissions will outstrip land use related emissions at an ever increasing rate (unless we do something about it) The data you need to investigate this for yourself (you only need a basic plotting tool, such as excel) are freely available from the carbon dioxide information analysis center As I said, some of us "mere statisticians" do have our uses ;o) -
batsvensson at 04:48 AM on 9 May 2010Earth's five mass extinction events
Chris @ 07:11 AM on 24 April, 2010, A general assumption in science is: if it isnt forbidden then it may be possible. As far as I know nothing stated in the idea is forbidden. However you say the idea is contradicted, fair enough. However contradicting is not the same as forbidding. Anyhow, if this was all about trying to convince you, or anyone else for that matter, about some certain likelihood to take this idea serious then indeed would "need to say why". Besides the point; is it really impossible for you (you have no ground to refer to "we" above) to imagine a scenario in which the idea is not contradicted? -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:35 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @ 82 I think you will find that quite a lot of posters here have put quite a lot of effort into understanding the science on both sides of the argument, and have not just "hitched their horses", but have formed a rational opinion for themselves. Your comment on "mere statisticians" is off-the mark (although it may be that being a "mere statistician" myself I am perhaps biased [sic]). A good statistician gets to grips with the data generating process (in this case the basics of climate physics); for a good statistician it is not about the number crunching. If you think "skeptics" are more concerned with basic physics than number crunching, try Craig Loehle's recent paper in Atmospheric Environment, where he asserts an exponential model for the growth of CO2 is no better than a saturating or polynomial model, purely on the basis that they give similarly good fits to the calibration data (the Keeling curve). Sadly this neglects the fact that there are data that exist pre-dating the Keeling curve and only the exponential model of the three gives a satisfactory fit there. Also there are good physical reasons to expect an exponential rise (for instance the fact that the airborne fraction is constant is what you would expect for a dynamical system with exponentially increasing emissions). Lastly, the IPCC projections of the rise in CO2 are based on physical models, not statistical models, so it is arguably the mainstream that is concentrating on the basics there. It is always rather easier to see the flaws in the "opposing side" of the argument, and very few of us are not susceptible to that. So I would suggest that your impression of the posters here is not necessarily a very clear one. I wouldn't claim mine is 20-20 either, which is why it is best not to try and second-guess the motivations or backgrounds of others. Much better to stick to the scientific arguments instead. -
Mal Adapted at 04:32 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Johnd,Darwin was wise enough to qualify his observation with "more frequently" than "always" which is how it is sometimes perceived.
Fair enough. People who can acknowledge their ignorance can easily become less ignorant. It's those who think they're experts because they read something on WUWT, that are dragging the rest of us down. -
JMurphy at 04:18 AM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
With regards to that list of 'skeptical' papers, I remember Pielke Jnr having some concerns about some of his (and his father's) work being included, but the person who put the list together stated that the papers would stay because he reckoned they WERE sceptical, no matter what Pielke asserted ! See the discussion here, which is noteworthy also because it shows great confusion and upset among Pielke's readers. -
johnd at 04:05 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Mal Adapted at 03:11 AM, WHRC calculated that between 1850 and 2000, 155 billion tonnes of carbon was released to the atmosphere from changes to land use. Given there is presently about 750 billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere, irrespective of what view anyone might take on the residency time, 155 billion tonnes is a significant amount, and I'm not sure that it is being given the necessary attention with all the focus there is on the combustion of fossil fuels. -
johnd at 03:54 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Mal Adapted at 03:03 AM, Darwin was wise enough to qualify his observation with "more frequently" than "always" which is how it is sometimes perceived. -
Stephen Baines at 03:32 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
In the previous post I meant humans etc interact through the carbon cycle. About this letter. I know a number of the signatories, I'm proud to say. One has his office next to mine; one was my thesis advisor, probably the scientist with the most integrity that I ever have known. The letter makes a strong point by ranking climate science with evolution and the big bang - believe me, that means something coming from the evolutionary biologists on this list. It's a call to arms really. This letter is definitely motivated by the sense that the way the climate debate is playing out in the media, the internet and now in the political/legal spheres was becoming a threat to the very way science is conducted. Science needs to have free and open (and that means often messy) debate. However, there is a clear sense that a chill is descending because anything you say could be misinterpreted, taken out of context, twisted in the blogosphere -- or it may be subject to political or legal action for simply not adhering to a position. I feel it even in the classroom. What I wonder is how we as scientists can communicate better when it seems the mechanisms we have typically used to popularize real science have been coopted by a much more efficient denial campaign, or crippled by the breakdown of traditional media with trained science journalists. Do we need a new sort of structure for communicating science? What would that look like? BTW This site is absolutely fantastic, John. Very level headed and clear. I point students to it all the time. You're a source of hope to me and others! Maybe it makes my worries moot. -
Stephen Baines at 03:13 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Monckhausen @ 62 Funny site that. But Dave Schindler is on the list and he is definitely Canadian -- proudly so. He is also in Calgary, so you need to be careful on two points. I wouldn't get the guy angry! ChrisCanaris @77. The evidence for climate change is derived from both climate science and the responses of biological/ecological/hydrological systems to that change. Social Scientists and some economists are involved in models of land-use, energy use projections and archeological evidence for climate change. One of the most convincing aspects of AGW has been the consistency of results across many distinct fields of inquiry. Indeed understanding prospects for future climate change (and causes of past change) is impossible without interdisciplinary interaction as humans, the hydrological sphere, the climate and ecological systems interact through the climate. The key difference between this letter and the OISM petition is that these 255 people are at the very top of the academic ladder. They may not represent the NAS directly, but they definitely represent the best science has to offer and they are in tune with the consensus. You simply can't say those about the OISM signatories. -
Mal Adapted at 03:11 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
RSVP:In reality, it is use of machinery that is supposedly causing global warming. Machines and fuels that are the result of applied science.
Bill Ruddiman thinks humans began affecting climate when they started using fire to modify landscapes, and accelerated the process by converting large areas of primary vegetation for farming. Of course, the combustion of vast amounts of fossil reduced carbon in the last couple of centuries has produced a hockey stick effect. -
Mal Adapted at 03:03 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Johnd,how many contributors here actually meet your criteria of being an expert or having undergone an extended apprenticeship.
The scientific consensus on AGW has been reached by the professionals who do meet the criteria. Before I found an easier way to make a living, I followed the process far enough to see for myself how scientific consensus is established. The other contributors here can speak for themselves. As for whether D-K only exists "at one end of the spectrum", the salient feature of the D-K effect is that it's asymmetrical. Darwin formulated it long before it was named: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." -
Phila at 03:01 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
#66 chriscanaris "I really don't want to sound like curmudgeonly contrarian but doctorates, professorships, and memberships of prestigious bodies are no guarantees of virtue." Of course this is true, but it's also true that we normally accept the consensus view of experts on any number of questions, from medicine to astrophysics, without worrying ourselves about their "virtue." What's interesting is not that one can cast casual aspersions on any group of experts, but that some people seem to have a psychological or political need to do so in regards to AGW, even though they'd accept the experts' view on other issues about which they know just as little. It seems to me that one should either doubt all consensus, across the board, or give climatologists the same presumption of honesty and competence that one normally extends to other scientists. -
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @ 82, The point is skepticstudent claimed his personal experience granted him some sort of special knowledge on the topic. Yes, the majority of posters here do not have relevant expertise, that is why the site puts a lot of emphasis on references to peer-reviewed research performed by experts in the field. If skeptics on this site are arguing in good faith, they should be able to provide the same. Skepticstudent has so far offered nothing but bald assertions. The majority of scientists researching AGW relevant topics are climate scientists, not statisticians. Statistics is key to any scientific discipline that evaluates data. Understanding what the data tells us is key to understanding the basic principles of how the world works. Empirical data trumps purely logical arguments every time, this is central to the scientific method. Famous example: Einstein never really embraced quantum mechanics. He even came up with some compelling thought experiments that seemed to undermine the basic principles of quantum theory. In the end, the empirical data (which was statistical in nature) proved Einstein wrong, and the basic conclusions of quantum mechanics are now considered scientific fact. -
RSVP at 02:53 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
81 shdwsnlite "Technology emerges and develops independent of people?" Anthropogenic means "caused" by humans. Technically, this is a misnomer, in that it implies that if you are a human, you are causing this problem. In reality, it is use of machinery that is supposedly causing global warming. Machines and fuels that are the result of applied science. -
johnd at 02:12 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Mal Adapted at 23:29 PM, how many contributors here actually meet your criteria of being an expert or having undergone an extended apprenticeship. Any? My impression is that most have merely hitched their horse to one cart or the other and have placed their faith, perhaps blindly at times, in those on board the cart who have or claim to have relevant expertise. As you also mention, a thorough knowledge of statistics is necessary making it seem that understanding climate change is more about number crunching than understanding the basic principles involved something which I think is also reflected here. That is the impression I get from the scientific debate itself. Many scientists, (how many are merely statisticians?) presenting and supporting the AGW hypothesis seem to have expertise on interpreting data and statistics, whilst those sceptical of it question and examine, not necessarily the data and statistics, but some of the basic principles that remain unresolved and not adequately understood or quantified as yet. It also may be a folly to assume the Dunning-Kruger effect only exists at one end of the spectrum, (or on one side of the debate) and not throughout, even at times amongst those who consider themselves the elite of their profession. -
shdwsnlite at 02:12 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
From #59 RSVP 16:28 8th May. "Ironically, the public is being asked to place its trust in scientists for a 'problem' labeled 'anthropogenic', (as if to blame people as opposed to technology)." Technology emerges and develops independent of people? -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:38 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@Ned (#72)... Don't underestimate the power of a good humorous metaphor. Science has a way of coming off like dry wheat toast. Anything you can do to sweeten science up goes a long way toward melting the heart of the broader non-scientific audience. Deniers aside, we already know that the vast majority of working scientists believe that AGW is a real concern. The task before scientists today is effectively communicating those concerns, which is what this thread is about. A strong, effective use of language is essential to communicating that message. -
tobyjoyce at 01:37 AM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcus #74, The efforts by the Attorneys-General of Virginia & Texas to pursue scientists like Michael Mann over state grant money they received is especially disturbing. it opens up vistas of scientists being asked to return funds when a promising line of enquiry turns out to be a dead end. Or for following political heretical investigations into stem cells, or even evolution. Steven McIntrye at Climate Audit has come out in opposition to this, and due credit to him for that. But it has been pointed out that he was one of the people who created the poisonous atmosphere which makes ambitious politicians seek to be media stars. Another disturbing trend is to equate media discussion with science. If Climate Audit or WUWT publish (for example) a reasonably good post, it gets all sorts of "yeahs" and "Right Ons" as if it is another convincing refutation. The readers do not seem to realise that such assertions have to be peer-reviewed or presented at conferences or seminars before they can be accepted as "proof" or tested science. Now, there have been really great posts as sites like this one, and Taminos (which I admire because I am a statistician) but I think this is science-popularization or science-for-the-layman, which is a respected part of science. The most successful science book of all time was a work of popularization "The Origin of Species" which was really a general discussion of Evolution that put the idea "out there" for the first time. The hard-core science came afterwards. On the denialists, you get someone like Joe Bastardi appearing on TV repeating stuff he read from WUWT, and treating it as if it was "real science" and not a set of speculations or untested assertions. This kind of stuff gets repeated on TV and print media all the time. "IPCC Wrong Again!", and the corrections somehow never get published. As has been said before, denialism is treated with a lower standard. Guess what I am saying is that there is a dangerous blurring of boundaries in which science may tend to be governed by what is "hot or not" in the media, and cease being an ideal of free inquiry. To an extent, this has always been the case, but with the billions at stake in energy research, climate science seems to be the latest and worst case of media intimidation of scientists. Polticians run scared of media exposure, and are always loath to be identified with media targets. -
Mal Adapted at 01:31 AM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, [I made a similar post on the succeeding thread, but since I didn't see Poptech commenting there, I'm reposting here for his benefit - Mal] It's evident you're not well acquainted with how science is actually done. Please read about the Dunning-Kruger effect. Then start educating yourself. Anyone can become an expert, if they're willing to make the effort. First, though, you need to realize that it's not enough just to be smart, you have to actually know something about the subject. If you're going to challenge the AGW consensus, you'll get respect only if you've put the time in, and not skipped any part of the process. You can be sure all the signatories to the May 7th letter have done so. Their authority rests on it. That means starting with introductory material and working your way up. It's how you acquire the theoretical framework needed to interpret the massive amount of empirical data, from multiple independent sources, that the AGW consensus draws on. To even know of the existence of the data requires reading all the historic and current peer-reviewed literature. Interpreting the data requires a thorough knowledge of statistics (as anyone who reads Tamino's blog can see), and you'll want to conduct your own experiments, and develop and test your own models. Very few people can do all that on their own. For most of us, the only practical route is an extended apprenticeship: obtaining undergraduate and graduate degrees, and doing original research under an established advisor. Throughout, you'll have to interact regularly with the community of professional peers that have been working on this for decades: discussing it informally, in person, by phone and by email (perhaps more cautiously than Phil Jones did); and formally, by presenting your ideas at the same conferences and publishing articles in the same journals they do, which unavoidably entails exposing yourself to their occasionally vituperative criticism -- hoo boy! Are you up to it, Poptech? If not, you've been treated more decently here than you deserve, and you should not expect that to continue.
Prev 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 Next
