billvon 3,096
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Which is the key to my mistrust of climate scientists. They go into the public with these fire and brimstone projections. Why? There must be a reason why a scientist would want to enter the public sphere consciousness pumping up horrific consequences that are ancillary to the science itself.
Ego? Funding? Objective advancement of our understanding doesn't seem to fit into that equation.
As I've mentioned previously, politics and science are adjuncts for each other with climate science.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Ego? Funding? Objective advancement of our understanding doesn't seem to fit into that equation.
As I've mentioned previously, politics and science are adjuncts for each other with climate science.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,096
>They go into the public with these fire and brimstone projections. Why?
Same reason deniers claim that any AGW mitigation will bankrupt America and cause us all to freeze in the dark, I suppose. Makes for better advertising revenue TV news networks.
>There must be a reason why a scientist would want to enter the public sphere
>consciousness pumping up horrific consequences that are ancillary to the science
>itself.
Most don't; you only see the ones that do.
Same reason deniers claim that any AGW mitigation will bankrupt America and cause us all to freeze in the dark, I suppose. Makes for better advertising revenue TV news networks.
>There must be a reason why a scientist would want to enter the public sphere
>consciousness pumping up horrific consequences that are ancillary to the science
>itself.
Most don't; you only see the ones that do.
brenthutch 444
From NOAA:
"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2014 tied with 2001 as the 21st highest for February on record, at 0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F)."
The cooling continues...
"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2014 tied with 2001 as the 21st highest for February on record, at 0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F)."
The cooling continues...
billvon 3,096
"0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F)."
"The cooling continues... "
Funny definition of cooling.
"The cooling continues... "
Funny definition of cooling.
GeorgiaDon 379
I recall a news story or two about lawyers who kept their mouths shut while innocent people rotted in jail for decades. So maybe lawyers are more comfortable than most scientists about keeping mum while people get fucked over.QuoteThere must be a reason why a scientist would want to enter the public sphere consciousness pumping up horrific consequences that are ancillary to the science itself.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
rushmc 23
GeorgiaDonI recall a news story or two about lawyers who kept their mouths shut while innocent people rotted in jail for decades. So maybe lawyers are more comfortable than most scientists about keeping mum while people get fucked over.QuoteThere must be a reason why a scientist would want to enter the public sphere consciousness pumping up horrific consequences that are ancillary to the science itself.
Don
Oooooo
Your on a roll today
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,135
GeorgiaDonI recall a news story or two about lawyers who kept their mouths shut while innocent people rotted in jail for decades. So maybe lawyers are more comfortable than most scientists about keeping mum while people get fucked over.QuoteThere must be a reason why a scientist would want to enter the public sphere consciousness pumping up horrific consequences that are ancillary to the science itself.
Don
Appropriate commentary:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4608249#4608249
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
GeorgiaDonI recall a news story or two about lawyers who kept their mouths shut while innocent people rotted in jail for decades. So maybe lawyers are more comfortable than most scientists about keeping mum while people get fucked over.QuoteThere must be a reason why a scientist would want to enter the public sphere consciousness pumping up horrific consequences that are ancillary to the science itself.
Don
And the examples of lawyers who argued that the innocent people should stay in jail because the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the guilt deniers should be paid no heed.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,135
"Those who actively mislead the public on climate change should be found criminally negligent".
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,135
images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-03-21-anomaltempmar2014-thumb.jpg
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
GeorgiaDon 379
lawrocket***
I recall a news story or two about lawyers who kept their mouths shut while innocent people rotted in jail for decades. So maybe lawyers are more comfortable than most scientists about keeping mum while people get fucked over.QuoteThere must be a reason why a scientist would want to enter the public sphere consciousness pumping up horrific consequences that are ancillary to the science itself.
Don
And the examples of lawyers who argued that the innocent people should stay in jail because the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the guilt deniers should be paid no heed.I'm afraid I don't follow the message of your response.
I was referring to your often-stated perspective that scientists should shut up and avoid "sounding the alarm", even if they strongly believe their data indicates an evolving danger to the public. They should publish their research in obscure journals and then just trust that politicians, business leaders, etc will read those papers, understand the implications of the findings, and take appropriate action.
Most scientists I know have more of a social conscience than that. Indeed, most people I know in my own area of research got into research because they want to do something useful to alleviate the burden of disease. When I teach undergrads about malaria, should I just stick to dry scientific facts and parasite life cycles? Am I wrong to talk about the economic and social impact of a disease that kills somebodies child every minute of every day? Do I need to recruit a social activist to come into my classroom to talk about that side of the subject?
When I was a grad student I had friends who got into law specifically because of their concern about environmental and civil rights issues. They believed that the law gave them the best avenue to take action on those issues. So, I am aware that there are lawyers who do have a social conscience. However, it seems to me that there is much about the profession that is all about winning and losing, without regard for the social costs. In that context, I mentioned the case of an innocent person, who was known to be innocent by the presiding judge at the trial, who was allowed to spend 37 years in jail. I suggested the possibility that a mindset that would knowingly allow an innocent person to spend their entire adult life in jail, to conform with a set of rules, would also be comfortable with the idea that scientists who become aware of a great danger should avoid raising any sort of public alarm.
In a larger sense, it seems to me the law is about following rules, regardless of whether or not the result is "justice". Consistency and process is valued over "truth". Science is about figuring out the truth. Science often is more messy than the law, because there can be a lot of debate, and a lot of experiments have to get done before some issues are settled. I don't know if people choose one profession or the other because they already think one way or the other, or if they become trained to think one way or the other as they learn the profession.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
rushmc 23
kallend"Those who actively mislead the public on climate change should be found criminally negligent".
So, in your mind, Al Gore should be in jail?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend
Why do you keep posting weather?
On another note. Michael Mann has apparently gone all in with a specific prediction and date.
Mark it on your calendars, folks. Jabuary 1, 2037 will be a very different world than January 1, 2036.
[Url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mann-why-global-warming-will-cross-a-dangerous-threshold-in-2036/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciam%2Fclimate+(Topic%3A+Climate)[/url]
He actually does something weird here: he puts an equation out there and actually explains it! Notably, he makes a number of assumptions in order to get to his answer. He puts the solar constant at 1370 watts per square meter. A bit higher than the 1362 that actual observations tell us the number is (satellite data). Even his own linked dataset doesn't show a solar constant that ever hits even 1369 watts since the year 850!
Here's where it starts getting weird:
[Quote]The choice A = 221.3 WK-1m-2 and B = 1.25 Wm-2 yields a realistic preindustrial global mean temperature T = 14.8 oC and an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of DT2xCO2 = 3.0oC, consistent with midrange estimates by the International Panel on Climate Change (ref. 7). B can be varied to change the ECS of the EBM. For example, the higher value B = 1.5 Wm-2 yields a more conservative ECS of DT2xCO2 = 2.5oC.
"Realistic preindustrial temperature?" I don't want to read that. Tell me how is compares with the actual data.
And ECS of 3.0? Or even 2.5? What if the ECS is actually 1.2? After all these decades, the top question of, "what is the ECS of CO2" is an unanswered question, with estimates between .8 and in excess of 5 degrees C.
[Quote] We assume constant solar output, and assume no climatically significant future volcanic eruptions.
We have assumed that tropospheric aerosols decrease exponentially from their current values with a time constant of 60 years.
Strong assumptions. Which gives the out if Mann is proven wrong. They are seriously expecting tropospheric aerosols to decrease exponentially? A new dawn of a smogless world? His own dataset indicates that aerosol forcing has already approached pre-industrial levels! Why is he assuming that aerosols will decrease "exponentially" from the levels that are already near pre-industrial?
What Mann did was make a bunch of assumptions based upon a worst-case scenario. He states no indication that his model is validated backwards against actual observational data (only that it provides a "realistic" preindustrial temperature) and adds an extra 8 or 9 watts per square meter of solar irradiance. He took the lowest-end estimate of earth albedo (.3).
This is where I question the models. The assumptions. The maths are correct. I don't take issue with the formulae. I DO question the assumptions. I
The guy - and the editors at Scientific American - needed a strong headline. If you look at what he did, it's pretty simple and sure as hell nothing groundbreaking. He plugged in some numbers and the computer model spit out the results and it was as horrific as he planned.
[Quote]You can try this exercise yourself. The text below explains the variables and steps involved.
Awesome! Even people who are not "real climate scientists" can participate. This isn't "peer review" but "public review." I also note the datasets he linked certainly cause reason to question his assumptions.
If there's anyone who can explain why he went with such things as .3 albedo, exponentially decreasing aerosols and 1.370 kw solar constant, I'd be glad to entertain it. Seems like he's totally tweaking the insolation side of the equation.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
[Reply]I was referring to your often-stated perspective that scientists should shut up and avoid "sounding the alarm", even if they strongly believe their data indicates an evolving danger to the public.
Ah. I don't think a scientist should just shut up. What I do think is that lines should be ascertainable between "scientist doing science" and "policy advocate who happens to be a scientist." We aren't seeing either. We're seeing far too much of "science says we have to do x."
That's policy. Not science.
[Reply]Most scientists I know have more of a social conscience than that.
Right. It's why I also have frequently written that scientists are human. But the whole angle of, "We're scientists and therefore you have to trust that we knnow what's better for you than anybody" does doesn't fly with me. Sorry, scientists - you've gotten a lot of stuff wrong. 8 years ago you told us of how much more frequent and worse hurricanes would be. And how snow would be a thing of the past. Till it snows a lot, which is when you say, "We meant it would snow a lot." Until there is a brown Christmas and "it's climate change."
Putting political arguments couched as science is like a Christian citing entropy as proof of God's existence.
[Reply]Indeed, most people I know in my own area of research got into research because they want to do something useful to alleviate the burden of disease. When I teach undergrads about malaria, should I just stick to dry scientific facts and parasite life cycles? Am I wrong to talk about the economic and social impact of a disease that kills somebodies child every minute of every day? Do I need to recruit a social activist to come into my classroom to talk about that side of the subject?
No. Do you tell them that there are other policies at work? Do you cite the statistics showing the prevalence of malaria before DDT, during DDT's deployment, and subsequent to DDT's banning?
Yes. That is a PERFECT example of science and policy. Scientists told us DDT is harming the environment. And scientists said that DDT must be banned. That DDT is dangerous became a political fact and it was banned.
The body of science and politics is now challenging that idea because we've now got a good idea of the death toll. I'm sure there were deniers then, saying that the potential cost of DDT is far outweighed by the number of people who will actually not be killed. But, science showed it's harmful stuff, yessirree. Who cares if a few million blacks and brown people die?
[Reply]However, it seems to me that there is much about the profession that is all about winning and losing, without regard for the social costs.
Yep. I hate that part, too. And it's unfortunate that I see it in the climate change debate, too. There are two sides. The alarmists are focused on persuasive threats of horror to prove their case to the public. The deniers are focused on winning their side, too, by saying that there isn't any evidence.
[Reply]In a larger sense, it seems to me the law is about following rules, regardless of whether or not the result is "justice". Consistency and process is valued over "truth".
You are exactly correct.
[Reply]Science is about figuring out the truth. Science often is more messy than the law, because there can be a lot of debate, and a lot of experiments have to get done before some issues are settled.
Right. Science runs experiments and is focused on empirical observations. Science itself has its own laws which lead to these predictions. Science has a way of checking itself and correcting itself.
What does a climate scientist do? He picks 2036 to make a prediction. When can we test to falsify it? We have to wait until 2037...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Very true. When I see a press release I generally just go to the article abstract; it's a lot less sensational.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites