Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How Can You Improve On "settled Science?"


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 01:29 PM

Major Study Rewrites the Driving Source of Atlantic Ocean Circulation

 

Massive volumes of water circulate throughout the Atlantic Ocean and serve as the central drivers of Earth’s climate. Now researchers have discovered that the heart of this circulation is not where they suspected....The discovery will help improve global climate models....“We’re trying to understand in the years and decades ahead, how sensitive is the overturning to these changes we expect at high latitude,” Lozier said...“We want this data then to provide ground truthing to the models because the models are really the only ones that can provide predictions,” said Lozier.

 

 

http://blogs.discove...utm_medium=feed

 

The science on this has been settled for decades.  Al Gore and many others have told us that.  Why pay any attention to new data?

 



#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2481 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 02:17 PM

All science is subject to change with new learning, so-called "settled" science included.

 

(I have never seen ocean current models described as "settled", though that might not stop an American politician from so describing them, I suppose).

 

No doubt this change will be seized on by climate change deniers and waved about, with comical indignation, as evidence that the "experts" don't know what they are talking about. :winknudge:   

 

Meanwhile the polar vortex is seriously destabilised, making parts of the US colder than the N Pole, while Australia has had a record heatwave and now intense monsoon flooding. Nah, no such thing as climate change - stands to reason, esp. if you drive 3 cars.  


Edited by exchemist, 02 February 2019 - 02:18 PM.


#3 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 06:07 PM

No doubt this change will be seized on by climate change denier 

 

 

I certainly don't claim to have any answers, but from what I've seen, there is still a significant amount of debate and dispute among the "experts."  That said, I'm not aware of any expert who denies "climate change."  They all agree that the climate does (now), has, and will "change" so the phrase "climate change deniers" puzzles me.  The whole issue has become so politicized that it's hard to tell if and when some of the claims are made on the basis of ideology or actual "science."

 

One "admission" if you want to call it that, from a lead author for the IPCC (Kevin Trenberth), always kind of struck me, though:

 

 

"In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios....

 

"There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines”.... But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents."

 

" There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.   None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate."

 

 

http://blogs.nature....of_climate.html

 

It's hard to read that and retain a lot of faith in IPCC climate models ("none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate").  Trenberth basically concedes that they are simply creating "story lines" which will conform to the (often politically motivated) "scenarios" presented by the IPCC.

 

There are no scientists on the IPCC, just "politicians" from different nations, each of which presumably has an "agenda."

 

I've seen a number of scientific consultants for the IPCC complain that the politicians (who have final say on the wording of the reports, not the scientists) have totally changed their reports to give them an entirely different meaning.

 

I guess it goes without saying that I am naturally skeptical of claims by fervent "climate disaster" alarmists and activists.  In just the past few days some member of the U.S. House of Representatives basically said that the world would cease to exist in 12 years unless restrictions on fossil fuels were implemented immediately.  Believe that, if you're so inclined.  Personally, I don't.


Edited by Moronium, 02 February 2019 - 06:56 PM.


#4 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 06:50 PM

I certainly don't claim to have any answers, but from what I've seen, there is still a significant amount of debate and dispute among the "experts."  

 

Here's another (there seem to be many) recent finding which seems to undermine the cocksure certainty about climate predictions displayed by some.

 

A Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts

 

4/09/2018

 

Climate Change: Scientists just discovered a massive, heretofore unknown, source of nitrogen. Why does this matter? Because it could dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that everybody claims are based on "settled science."

 

The researchers, whose findings were published in the prestigious journal Science, say they've determined that the idea that the only source of nitrogen for plant life came from the air is wrong. There are vast storehouses in the planet's bedrock that plants also feed on.

 

...University of California at Davis environmental scientist and co-author of the study, Ben Houlton, says that "This runs counter the centuries-long paradigm that has laid the foundation for the environmental sciences."

 

If Houlton's finding about these vast, previously unknown nitrogen stores holds true, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions.

 

 

https://www.investor...nitrogen-rocks/


Edited by Moronium, 02 February 2019 - 06:57 PM.


#5 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 07:31 PM

Here's a seemingly objective article which some may find of interest, although it's rather lengthy:

 

The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics

 

The criteria we have set for this article are quite strict. They had to be, because there are many thousands of climate scientists in the world today, a large number of whom have been involved in the debate over global warming/climate change and would have a legitimate claim to appear on a list like this. To boil all these scientists down to 15 names, we had to be extremely selective.

 

We are well aware that those who support the mainstream position that anthropogenic climate change represents a grave threat to the future of humanity will deplore our decision to represent both side of the debate (or even to characterize the ongoing discussion as a “debate” at all). They have convinced themselves that only cranks and paid stooges could possibly disagree with them. We see things differently.

 

Simply stated, we maintain that appeals to authority and scurrilous ad hominem attacks are no substitute for rational argument. We also hold that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This means, among other things, that mainstream climate scientists who roundly condemn climate skeptics for seeking support from private industry ought to be a bit more circumspect, seeing that they themselves receive millions in financial backing from government agencies. The tacit assumption behind their indignation  — that only private actors have material interests, while public actors are by definition impartial seekers after truth  — simply won’t wash.

 

That said, we do not feel under any obligation to give “equal time” to both sides. In the end, we came up with the following formula: the mainstream position will be represented by 10 scientists; the skeptical position by five.

 

 

 

https://thebestschoo...nge-scientists/


Edited by Moronium, 02 February 2019 - 07:34 PM.


#6 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 12:29 PM

Which of the 5 denialists would be your personal favourite. I've read up on Lennart O. Bengtsson but unfortunately he has recanted his entire position. If you're taking the denialist side then wouldn't it be best if you promote just one of them as  being determined and credible? 

 

Sauce for the goose: Bengtsson says his colleagues are evil.

 

Sauce for the gander: The motives of the denialists 'could' be evil.


Edited by montgomery, 08 February 2019 - 01:01 PM.


#7 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 02:48 PM


 

Which of the 5 denialists would be your personal favourite. I've read up on Lennart O. Bengtsson but unfortunately he has recanted his entire position. If you're taking the denialist side then wouldn't it be best if you promote just one of them as  being determined and credible? 

 

Sauce for the goose: Bengtsson says his colleagues are evil.

 

Sauce for the gander: The motives of the denialists 'could' be evil.

 

Monty, what the article call "skeptics," you call "denialists,"  which you clearly intend as a pejorative term.  Then you misconstrue (misrepresent) the actions of one of them.

 

I can see where you're coming from, and where this would be heading if we "discussed" it.

 

I'd rather not go there, sorry.


Edited by Moronium, 08 February 2019 - 02:49 PM.


#8 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 03:47 PM

Monty, what the article call "skeptics," you call "denialists,"  which you clearly intend as a pejorative term.  Then you misconstrue (misrepresent) the actions of one of them.

 

I can see where you're coming from, and where this would be heading if we "discussed" it.

 

I'd rather not go there, sorry.

Suit yourself. One who denies is a denialist whether you like the term or not. And then mentioning that the denialist at the top of the list says his colleagues are evil seems to tell us all we need to know about that one. Don't despair, the other 4 may be more credible?

 

Now you can also stand your ground on promoting Bengtsson but you mustn't accuse all his colleagues of being evil. That's wouldn't be abiding by the rules would it! 



#9 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 04:22 PM

What is interesting, whoever is "right," is the extreme pressure and ostracism which some of these scientists (e.g., Curry) were subjected to by their peers when they questioned the popular view.  

 

 

Curry was drummed out of academia for expressing in public her reservations about some of the more extreme claims being made by mainstream climate scientists....Finding herself denounced as a “climate change denier” and under intense pressure to recant her views, in 2017 Curry instead took early retirement from her job at Georgia Tech and left academia, citing the “craziness” of the present politicization of climate science.

 

It seems to me that true, dispassionate scientists would never find it either necessary or desirable to pressure a fellow scientist with opposing views to change their honest assessment.  That's not what "science" is about.


Edited by Moronium, 08 February 2019 - 04:24 PM.


#10 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 09 February 2019 - 10:25 AM

Curry's saga began with a Science paper she co-authored in 2005, which linked an increase in powerful tropical cyclones to global warming. It earned her scathing attacks on skeptical climate blogs.

 

She did not necessarily agree with the criticisms, but rather than dismissing them, as many scientists might have done, she began to engage with the critics...I thought, 'Well, these are the people I want to reach rather than preaching to the converted over at [the mainstream climate science blog] RealClimate.'"...once Curry ventured out onto the skeptic blogs, the questions she saw coming from the most technically savvy of the outsiders—including statisticians, mechanical engineers and computer modelers from industry—helped to solidify her own uneasiness

 

It was here that Curry began to develop respect for climate outsiders—or at least, some of them. And it made her reconsider her uncritical defense of the IPCC over the years. Curry says, "I realize I engaged in groupthink myself...in her unquestioning acceptance of the idea that IPCC reports represent the best available thinking about climate change.

 

She says she always trusted the IPCC to gather and synthesize all the disparate threads in this complex and multifaceted area of science. "I had 90 to 95 percent confidence in the IPCC Working Group 1 report," she states,... "Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong, but I no longer felt obligated in substituting the IPCC for my own personal judgment," she said in a recent interview posted on the Collide-a-Scape climate blog.

 

It is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry.

 

Curry asserts that scientists haven't adequately dealt with the uncertainty in their calculations and don't even know with precision what's arguably the most basic number in the field: the climate forcing from CO2—that is, the amount of warming a doubling of CO2 alone would cause without any amplifying or mitigating effects from melting ice, increased water vapor or any of a dozen other factors.

 

Things get worse, she argues, when you try to add in those feedbacks to project likely temperature increases over the next century, because the feedbacks are rife with uncertainty as well: "There's a whole host of unknown unknowns that we don't even know how to quantify but that should be factored into our confidence level."

 

To Curry, the damage comes not from the skeptics' critiques themselves, most of which are questionable, but from the scientific community's responses to them..."She's been hugely criticized by the climate science community," McIntyre says, "for not maintaining the fatwa [against talking to outsiders]."

 

Climate scientists feel embattled...what Curry has tried to do naturally feels like treason [to them]—especially since the skeptics have latched onto her as proof they have been right all along.

 

The whole thing has become a political potboiler, and what might be the normal insider debates over the minutiae of data, methodology and conclusions have gotten shrill. It is perhaps unreasonable to expect everyone to stop sniping at one another, but given the high stakes, it is crucial to focus on the science itself and not the noise.

 

 

https://www.nature.c...s.2010.577.html


Edited by Moronium, 09 February 2019 - 11:29 AM.


#11 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 09 February 2019 - 10:42 AM

Some consider [Curry] a heretic. According to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ‘anti-science’.

 

‘It’s unfortunate, but he calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him a denier,’ she tells me. ‘Inside the climate community there are a lot of people who don’t like what I’m doing."

 

"The debate has become hard — especially in the US, because it’s become so polarised.’ Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. They like to reduce the uncertainties of climate science and climate projections to Manichean simplicity. They have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate about what to do."

 

Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe."

 

"I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing."

 

She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: "I think that by 2030...there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection."

 

She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’

 

 

https://www.spectato...ry-interviewed/


Edited by Moronium, 09 February 2019 - 10:48 AM.


#12 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 09 February 2019 - 05:54 PM

What is interesting, whoever is "right," is the extreme pressure and ostracism which some of these scientists (e.g., Curry) were subjected to by their peers when they questioned the popular view.  

 

 

 

It seems to me that true, dispassionate scientists would never find it either necessary or desirable to pressure a fellow scientist with opposing views to change their honest assessment.  That's not what "science" is about.

Honest assessment?? I would think that scientists on the side of right would be at least as tolerant as anyone on opposing views to their own. And it's not the scientists that said your guy was evil, it's the other way around. Why would you not choose to go on to #2 on the list when it's so obvious that something has gone wrong with your first choice's mental faculties? Evil colleauges?? Senililty?

 

If the rules would allow us to explore who's paying him we might be able to solve the mystery on why he thinks all his colleagues are evil.



#13 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2569 posts

Posted 10 February 2019 - 04:09 PM



related I think.



#14 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 10 February 2019 - 06:26 PM

related I think.

 

 

Yeah, I think so, too (and I listened to the whole thing, btw).  I've seen Moore talk (and write) before and I think he has a unique perspective as a prominent environmental activist.  According to him, he had to quit Greenpeace because they refused to even listen to scientific claims.  They kept trying to push pseudo-science as a scare tactic in a fanatical way, and he could just no longer abide by it.

 

I find the "ideological" aspect of "climate science" more interesting that the science itself.  I think the article I quoted which called it "quasi-McCarthyism" (or sometime like that) hit the nail on the head.  It puts science as a whole in a disreputable light, unfortunately.


Edited by Moronium, 10 February 2019 - 06:30 PM.


#15 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 01:31 PM

I got to where the bonehead announcer said the animal kingdom was not perfect and that's where I decided that I couldn't waste any more time listiening to that pap. But I'm pretty sure the good doctor has something to say! Can anybody tell me when he starts in the vid? I mean really, even he must have been embarrassed by the shallowness of that announcer! 

 

Anyway, in the meantime I'll have a look at his credentials.



#16 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 01:38 PM

https://www.sourcewa...p/Patrick_Moore

 

Well, Sourcewatch doesn't have a very flattering view of him. But then that's just their opinion!

 

Patrick Moore is an ecologist who denies that humans cause climate change, and a corporate consultant through his firm Greenspirit Strategies. Moore has consulted for the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and has worked in defense of biotechnology.

Although Moore was once (1981, 1986) a leading figure with Greenpeace Canada and subsequently with Greenpeace International, in 2008 Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he "exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes." [1]

Nasty! They're making him out to be a real villian and phony. 

I'm hoping that somebody is going to point out where the good stuff starts in that video? This can't be the whole story about mr. Moore?

Although I guess I have to say that it's been firmly established that the animal kingdom is not perfect! 


Edited by montgomery, 12 February 2019 - 01:42 PM.


#17 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2569 posts

Posted 12 February 2019 - 02:20 PM

I got to where the bonehead announcer said the animal kingdom was not perfect and that's where I decided that I couldn't waste any more time listiening to that pap

Ahh yes, "head in the sand" is a typical response to information and reasoning that causes stress and discomfort. It's not a GOOD or HEALTHY response, but I'm sure that evolutionary mechanism survived by design and not just incidentally.  :beer-fresh: