Simple Question About AGW

[Slimething]

NASA Goddard Center, March 2006
NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic ... According to this new research, ozone was responsible for one-third to half of the observed warming trend in the Arctic during winter and spring. Ozone is transported from the industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere to the Arctic quite efficiently during these seasons.

This one is fascinating. Ozone is now more contributive to AGW than CO2. While ozone is nefariously wiping out the poles, it's doing flat zip to warm the cities from whence it came. Varwoche, I would take this one off the list.

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

 

[CapelDodger]

it's probably apparent by now that unless a shocking paper surfaces that slices, dices and even makes julienne fries, i'm unlikely to be convinced either way next week or even next month, and i don't know how long it will take. i don't make policy decisions so the world will not be on pins and needles while i make up my mind.

It's one of the joys of this kind of arena that it won't have the slightest impact on the big picture. There's freedom in that.

not that y'all need to jump around to entertain me, just clarifying my position. but speaking of jumping around, i think more people should at least try to direct all that energy they expend jumping toward looking at the actual science behind it, even if (like me) you've got a snowball's chance in hell of actually understanding it.

Climate science is not that difficult to understand. Statistics a bit more so, but not as esoteric as it's often made out to be. (Resort to esoteric statistics is a definite warning sign, to my mind.)

The scientific argument has been done to death around here; what we're left with is pretty much what you've observed. Not a great source for the scientific background.

 

[Slimething]

Science isn't the only evidence worth discussing. That's what you want to concentrate on, and I'm fine with that. Leave me to plough my own furrow.

Stick to the science, is my advice. Policy is a diversion, and we know how some people love diversions.

A little intellectual dissonance, anyone?

 

[CapelDodger]

This one is fascinating. Ozone is now more contributive to AGW than CO2.

"One-third to a half" becomes "more" in just one step. Bravo.

So that's the Arctic in winter and spring sorted, with hardly a trace of "Anthropogenic". (Irony.) How's the rest of the world reacting?

While ozone is nefariously wiping out the poles, it's doing flat zip to warm the cities from whence it came.

Do I hear the death-knell of the Urban Heat Island effect there?

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them ...

Well there's a thing.

...but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

Directed Science? Directed how? Science has never prospered where it's been directed. What on Earth are you suggesting? Some unseen global power that can direct science?

Post-predicted hoc is often quite validly associated with propter. That's how science works. Observe, hypothesise, predict, observe again. Mystic science, the "something might turn up" position, really doesn't fit in there. AGW does.

 

[CapelDodger]

A little intellectual dissonance, anyone?

How so? Please do expand. A couple of long words and a smilie doesn't convey much.

 

[varwoche]

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

Does it hurt much? When your knee jerks into your chin that is.

 

[David Rodale]

This one is fascinating. Ozone is now more contributive to AGW than CO2. While ozone is nefariously wiping out the poles, it's doing flat zip to warm the cities from whence it came. Varwoche, I would take this one off the list.

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

There's nothing like an irrefutable hypothesis. No matter what happens, it's caused by AGW. Very convenient.

 

[Slimething]

Do I hear the death-knell of the Urban Heat Island effect there?

Another CD claim out of the blue: AGW accounts for the urban heat island effect. Evidence?

Directed Science? Directed how?

Directed science: studies incorporating a known bias performed to confirm a conclusion rather than test an hypothesis.

Science has never prospered where it's been directed. What on Earth are you suggesting? Some unseen global power that can direct science?

So much to learn; so little time, huh? Know you not of any falsified studies? How did your cave get internet service?

Post-predicted hoc is often quite validly associated with propter. That's how science works. Observe, hypothesise, predict, observe again. Mystic science, the "something might turn up" position, really doesn't fit in there. AGW does.

Your imaginary view of science is showing again. Science is NOT observe, hypothesize, predict, repeat. That's what I call the iterative stochastic approach and it's not science. It might be where you live but not here on Earth. Science is hypothesize, devise a test, test, judge results. It's not science if the test cannot falsify the hypothesis. Your approach is called research/hypothesis formation and it's only a small part of science.

Again, you use the mystic science label. Can you explain to me yet, if all the science needed to model climate is known, why hasn't it been successfully modeled in over one hundred years of trying? After that, you can back up your claim that past climate can be post-dicted with the simple physics you know. How about your claim that a model is not a hypothesis? What fun, living in a make-believe world!

 

[Slimething]

Does it hurt much? When your knee jerks into your chin that is.

Not nearly as much as being fooled by irresponsible conclusions, varwoche. From where I sit, researchers can determine (1) if there is a correlation between overall climate and a natural phenomenon and (2) the approximate concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at that time. There is no authoritative method of linking them at the moment.

Prove me wrong.

 

[mhaze]

This one is fascinating. Ozone is now more contributive to AGW than CO2. While ozone is nefariously wiping out the poles, it's doing flat zip to warm the cities from whence it came. Varwoche, I would take this one off the list.

As far as the others, I haven't read most of them but, from the descriptions, I would say "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." I dislike directed science. DDT and eggshells (what else was in them shells?).

Well, I concur from the presented summaries but the actual articles may be quite different from those summaries.

 

[bobdroege7]

there are some credible institutions listed there (in particular, i have an inordinate fondness for Scripps, since i saw my first-ever real live shark there when i was five)...

and some very interesting hypotheses...

BUT here's the thing. they are articles and press releases. NONE are science papers.

But the first one is a science paper from a peer reviewed journal (PNAS which is available on line for free) and can be found here

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...on&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

the second is from Nature

the third from Proceeding of the Royal Society

the forth is Lawrence Livermore labs

the fifth is Climate Dynamics

the sixth is NOAA

the seventh is NASA

and the eighth is Scrippts at the University of California San Diego in association with Lawrence livermore labs.

If that's Varwochian psuedoscience, I'm all for it.

Maybe mHaze would like to repost some high school chick's blog drivel and we'll see which is more scientific.

 

[zeusbheld]

It's one of the joys of this kind of arena that it won't have the slightest impact on the big picture. There's freedom in that.

i was never worried that i would somehow slip up and make a difference

Climate science is not that difficult to understand. Statistics a bit more so, but not as esoteric as it's often made out to be. (Resort to esoteric statistics is a definite warning sign, to my mind.)

maybe it's easy for you, but maybe i just suck at math and so when i look at the relevant equations or the mathematical reasoning behind the models i get a headache.

The scientific argument has been done to death around here; what we're left with is pretty much what you've observed. Not a great source for the scientific background.

i look stuff up on my own, but given that most science papers cost ten or twenty bucks, every now and then someone pops into a forum like this and has a link to a paper i wouldn't have found on my own.

 

[zeusbheld]

But the first one is a science paper from a peer reviewed journal (PNAS which is available on line for free) and can be found here

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...on&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

the second is from Nature

the third from Proceeding of the Royal Society

the forth is Lawrence Livermore labs

the fifth is Climate Dynamics

the sixth is NOAA

the seventh is NASA

and the eighth is Scrippts at the University of California San Diego in association with Lawrence livermore labs.

If that's Varwochian psuedoscience, I'm all for it.

Maybe mHaze would like to repost some high school chick's blog drivel and we'll see which is more scientific.

thanks for that! as i said the articles cited papers, most of which were published in journals i recognize and respect, but as Varwoche pointed out most of 'em expect money for a full text. in this case i was just too dim to find the actual paper.

 

[zeusbheld]

A little intellectual dissonance, anyone?

i think it's a fair enough comment given that i specifically pointed out that was what i'm interested in doesn't imply that the poster in question is only interested in the science part.

 

[zeusbheld]

Well, I concur from the presented summaries but the actual articles may be quite different from those summaries.

and the full text are articles and press releases, not the abstract of the paper. Varwoche made a valid point that most of the actual papers cost money, but you can't really see how they arrived at their conclusion without the whole paper. with the best of intentions and without questioning anyone's integrity, something often gets lost in that game of password. sometimes what's lost is irrelevant, sometimes it isn't.

 

[a_unique_person]

Your imaginary view of science is showing again. Science is NOT observe, hypothesize, predict, repeat. That's what I call the iterative stochastic approach and it's not science. It might be where you live but not here on Earth. Science is hypothesize, devise a test, test, judge results. It's not science if the test cannot falsify the hypothesis. Your approach is called research/hypothesis formation and it's only a small part of science.

I would wonder what a great number of scientists are doing in the world these days. They are working with many areas where it is impossible to 'falsify' their research. String theory and astronomy and other areas of research come to mind. Not everyone has the luxury of a laboratory.

 

[zeusbheld]

I would wonder what a great number of scientists are doing in the world these days. They are working with many areas where it is impossible to 'falsify' their research. String theory and astronomy and other areas of research come to mind. Not everyone has the luxury of a laboratory.

it is my understanding that string theory is controversial amongst physicists, exactly because it has been dominant for so long without producing falsifiable claims.

 

[TrueSceptic]

there are some credible institutions listed there (in particular, i have an inordinate fondness for Scripps, since i saw my first-ever real live shark there when i was five)...

and some very interesting hypotheses...

BUT here's the thing. they are articles and press releases. NONE are science papers. some are articles ABOUT science papers, but none are genuine science papers, with all the data, endless charts, and messy higher math that is beyond my comprehension, and none of the publications are peer-reviewed journals. i may google the actual papers in question, but i have a long, long list of things to google already.

incidentally, i should add that i am Naomi Oreskes' survey is solid and has resisted attempts to refute it to my satisfaction. yep, i'll agree there's a consensus. four years later, probably even more scientists in relevant disciplines on board. all articles and press releases do, though, is add to the weight of how many scientists say AGW is happening. i already know there are lots of 'em. but consensus ain't how science works.

i am trying to understand what the science that has been done is saying, not the scientists who do it, however well-intentioned and convinced they may be. i want to see the actual work. therefore, i want to see the science papers that are doing the heavy lifting towards establishing AGW (or some other cause for GW) as i struggle to understand what's going on.

it's probably apparent by now that unless a shocking paper surfaces that slices, dices and even makes julienne fries, i'm unlikely to be convinced either way next week or even next month, and i don't know how long it will take. i don't make policy decisions so the world will not be on pins and needles while i make up my mind.

not that y'all need to jump around to entertain me, just clarifying my position. but speaking of jumping around, i think more people should at least try to direct all that energy they expend jumping toward looking at the actual science behind it, even if (like me) you've got a snowball's chance in hell of actually understanding it.

Zeusbheld, please do not take this the wrong way, but there seems to be a problem here: you will only be convinced by reading the original scientific papers, and not by someone's summation or interpretation of them, yet you say that you are unlikely to understand the science in those papers anyway. Have I got that right?

Isn't this therefore down to trust: whom do we trust to summarise scientific papers for those of us who don't work in that particular field?

In another forum someone said that they didn't trust climate scientists or the IPCC but they would trust the opinion of someone like Stephen Hawking; after all, he's widely respected as a great mind and he is not involved in climate science so has no axe to grind. I didn't know Hawking's views on GW, or even if he had any, so I was a bit surprised to find that his views were extremely alarmist. The response to this? Well, I bet if he really looked at it, he wouldn't believe it! Sigh...

 

[zeusbheld]

Zeusbheld, please do not take this the wrong way, but there seems to be a problem here: you will only be convinced by reading the original scientific papers, and not by someone's summation or interpretation of them, yet you say that you are unlikely to understand the science in those papers anyway. Have I got that right?

let me clarify: i am unlikely to COMPLETELY understand the science behind it, and i am wary of lay people who say they do. i'm not completely averse to summations and interpretation, but science papers tend to follow this nifty format where they have an abstract and conclusions. so while i may not completely understand the math, i can understand what the paper is actually claiming, and the thrust of their argument.

press releases follow a format too, and um. it isn't quite the same. in my experience "the media" has a bias--it isn't political, it's toward selling papers or attracting viewers.

Isn't this therefore down to trust: whom do we trust to summarise scientific papers for those of us who don't work in that particular field?

fair enough. and i trust the authors of the paper, in their abstract and conclusion.

In another forum someone said that they didn't trust climate scientists or the IPCC but they would trust the opinion of someone like Stephen Hawking; after all, he's widely respected as a great mind and he is not involved in climate science so has no axe to grind. I didn't know Hawking's views on GW, or even if he had any, so I was a bit surprised to find that his views were extremely alarmist. The response to this? Well, I bet if he really looked at it, he wouldn't believe it! Sigh...

Hawking's views are pretty out there; day-after-tomorrow type stuff.

i have no innate distrust of climate scientists, but i want to read from their papers, what they are really saying and how they got there.

 

[TrueSceptic]

let me clarify: i am unlikely to COMPLETELY understand the science behind it, and i am wary of lay people who say they do. i'm not completely averse to summations and interpretation, but science papers tend to follow this nifty format where they have an abstract and conclusions. so while i may not completely understand the math, i can understand what the paper is actually claiming, and the thrust of their argument.

press releases follow a format too, and um. it isn't quite the same. in my experience "the media" has a bias--it isn't political, it's toward selling papers or attracting viewers.

fair enough. and i trust the authors of the paper, in their abstract and conclusion.



Hawking's views are pretty out there; day-after-tomorrow type stuff.

i have no innate distrust of climate scientists, but i want to read from their papers, what they are really saying and how they got there.

Thanks for clarifying. The work of specialists (not just scientists) can so easily be misrepresented by those with idealogical or political agendas. Sadly, very little climate science does not suffer from this.

I thought that abstracts were often available free. Perhaps we can see what's available...