Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

...For me the big question remains : who conceived and first proposed this disastrous exercise? My money's on Muller; I didn't remember hearing of him pre-BEST so to that extent it's worked out well for an attention-seeker.

Well, and that is the issue from my perspective, my first introduction to Muller was as a statistician that was frequenting several of the denier blogs and meeting with the big cheeses at the denier conventions and conferences. BEST didn't start to be mentioned as a project in planning until quite a bit later. He was spouting denier talking points back in 2008 in his class-room lectures (perhaps before then).

 

[Megalodon]

Posted this in another thread, but I think it adds to the discussion here.

Today I got a nice email from ELSEVIER with the list of the 20 most downloaded Oceanography papers of 2011. It refers only to their Science Direct online platform, and goes like this:

1 Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Baker, A.C.; Glynn, P.W.; Riegl, B.

2 Impacts of climate change on fisheries
Journal of Marine Systems
Brander, K.

3 Climatological mean and decadal change in surface ocean pCO"2, and net sea-air CO"2 flux over the global oceans
Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography
Takahashi, T.; Sutherland, S.C.; Wanninkhof, R.; Sweeney, C.; Feely, R.A.; Chipman, D.W.; Hales, B.; Friederich, G.; Chavez, F.; Sabine, C.; Watson, A.; Bakker, D.C.E.; Schuster, U.; Metzl, N.; Yoshikawa-Inoue, H.; Ishii, M.; Midorikawa, T.; Nojiri, Y.; K

4 Global observations of nonlinear mesoscale eddies
Progress in Oceanography
Chelton, D.B.; Schlax, M.G.; Samelson, R.M.

5 Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management: Managed realignment case studies in England
Ocean & Coastal Management
Luisetti, T.; Turner, R.K.; Bateman, I.J.; Morse-Jones, S.; Adams, C.; Fonseca, L.

6 An 11-year validation of wave-surge modelling in the Irish Sea, using a nested POLCOMS-WAM modelling system
Ocean Modelling
Brown, J.M.; Souza, A.J.; Wolf, J.

7 Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: A review of theory and practice
Ocean & Coastal Management
Cicin-Sain, B.; Belfiore, S.

8 The combined effects of ocean acidification, mixing, and respiration on pH and carbonate saturation in an urbanized estuary
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Feely, R.A.; Alin, S.R.; Newton, J.; Sabine, C.L.; Warner, M.; Devol, A.; Krembs, C.; Maloy, C.

9 Challenging paradigms in estuarine ecology and management
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Elliott, M.; Whitfield, A.K.

10 The impact of tourism and personal leisure transport on coastal environments: A review
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Davenport, J.; Davenport, J.L.

11 pH of seawater
Marine Chemistry
Marion, G.M.; Millero, F.J.; Camoes, M.F.; Spitzer, P.; Feistel, R.; Chen, C.T.A.

12 History and scenarios of future development of Baltic Sea eutrophication
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Voss, M.; Dippner, J.W.; Humborg, C.; Hurdler, J.; Korth, F.; Neumann, T.; Schernewski, G.; Venohr, M.

13 Benthic habitat mapping: A review of progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using acoustic techniques
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Brown, C.J.; Smith, S.J.; Lawton, P.; Anderson, J.T.

14 The composition of Standard Seawater and the definition of the Reference-Composition Salinity Scale
Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers
Millero, F.J.; Feistel, R.; Wright, D.G.; McDougall, T.J.

15 On the use of IPCC-class models to assess the impact of climate on Living Marine Resources
Progress in Oceanography
Stock, C.A.; Alexander, M.A.; Bond, N.A.; Brander, K.M.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Curchitser, E.N.; Delworth, T.L.; Dunne, J.P.; Griffies, S.M.; Haltuch, M.A.; Hare, J.A.; Hollowed, A.B.; Lehodey, P.; Levin, S.A.; Link, J.S.; Rose, K.A.; Rykaczewski, R.R.; Sarmien

16 Marine ecosystems'responses to climatic and anthropogenic forcings in the Mediterranean
Progress in Oceanography
The MerMex Group:; Durrieu de Madron, X.; Guieu, C.; Sempere, R.; Conan, P.; Cossa, D.; D'Ortenzio, F.; Estournel, C.; Gazeau, F.; Rabouille, C.; Stemmann, L.; Bonnet, S.; Diaz, F.; Koubbi, P.; Radakovitch, O.; Babin, M.; Baklouti, M.; Bancon-Montigny, C.

17 Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Alongi, D.M.

18 Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Defeo, O.; McLachlan, A.; Schoeman, D.S.; Schlacher, T.A.; Dugan, J.; Jones, A.; Lastra, M.; Scapini, F.

19 Overview of eutrophication indicators to assess environmental status within the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Ferreira, J.G.; Andersen, J.H.; Borja, A.; Bricker, S.B.; Camp, J.; Cardoso da Silva, M.; Garces, E.; Heiskanen, A.S.; Humborg, C.; Ignatiades, L.; Lancelot, C.; Menesguen, A.; Tett,
P.; Hoepffner, N.; Claussen, U.

20 Predicting the impacts of ocean acidification: Challenges from an ecosystem perspective
Journal of Marine Systems
Blackford, J.C.


In bold are the ones obviously dealing with global warming or ocean acidification. You can guess how many of these are denying the effect of CO2 on GW and OA.

So what is the measure of a successful theory? That others build upon it, validating it's premises and improving on the general knowledge.

Where are the articles showing the oceans acting as predicted by a non-CO2 GW, or even a non-warming world?

 

[carlitos]

Hi all,

I don't think I'm allowed to make this a new topic, and I don't want to PM you all uninvited. Could someone help me with the following? On another forum, a very strident poster keeps telling me about Svensmark cosmic ray warming hypothesis. Specifically:

carlitos (1) how did your study of Svensmark’s hypothesis go that weekend? (2) what conclusions did you draw and why? (3) will you review this article about Svensmark’s most recent peer-reviewed paper: “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” published by the Royal Astronomical Society?

Specifically, Svensmark explains his reasoning and research about (1) how the Earth’s changing position in the Milky Way galaxy and also the Sun’s changing properties drive climate change, and (2) how these drive biodiversity, including the differing types of gases used by organisms in respiration, and (3) total biomass, and (4) both atmospheric CO2 and O2 levels

.

I see his papers referenced in this thread, but not enough to formulate an opinion either way. Is there a consensus? Feel free to PM me if this is off-topic here. I'd be happy with just a few links to help me find my way. I'm not an expert in the field. Thanks.

 

[Reality Check]

On another forum, a very strident poster keeps telling me about Svensmark cosmic ray warming hypothesis.
...
I see his papers referenced in this thread, but not enough to formulate an opinion either way. Is there a consensus?

The consensus is that the current global warming is not significantly caused by cosmic rays for the reasons that there has been no correlation between the 2 over the last 20 years and that "cosmic ray flux has lagged behind the global temperature change since approximately 1970 (Krivova 2003)" (What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?).

 

[lomiller]

Your statement of experience with learning science seems unlike my own. I'm sure that there is probably some segment of the professional and academic scientific community to whom this might apply, particularly in early, more general, science and math studies (the rounded education approach). But I am not familiar with any professional researcher who has not developed an intimately detailed, interactive discovery of their field of focus and specialty.

At least until graduate level, however, the science students are learning things that are so well established that there really isn't any legitimate room for asking if they are really true or not. As such weighing the evidence for or against can't really happen. This IS a correct answer the student is supposed to come up with and they will be graded negatively if they don't come up with it.

What ends up happening then is the teacher/professor has gives facts to the student and the student is expected to learn these facts and repeat them on tests. It's a good system for teaching the outcomes of science, but doesn't do so well in teaching the process of science. Not useless but it's certainly possible to get an undergraduate degree in science or engineering and never really learn how to weigh scientific evidence.

 

[lomiller]

Hi all,

I don't think I'm allowed to make this a new topic, and I don't want to PM you all uninvited. Could someone help me with the following? On another forum, a very strident poster keeps telling me about Svensmark cosmic ray warming hypothesis. Specifically:



I see his papers referenced in this thread, but not enough to formulate an opinion either way. Is there a consensus? Feel free to PM me if this is off-topic here. I'd be happy with just a few links to help me find my way. I'm not an expert in the field. Thanks.

As reality check mentions above changes in cosmic rays don't match our current climate change. They probably also do not match past climate change. Understanding of where the solar system was in the galaxy and what cosmic ray intensity has been in the past has varied GREATLY over the past few decades and Svensmark has rejigged his numbers multiple times to match whatever the current estimates are. His hypothesis has no predictive power.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/a-galactic-glitch/

If you look though this thread you will also find links to at least 1 paper discussing the physical mechanism Svensmark says is occurring. The conclusion what that while the mechanism is plausible it's to small to have much effect on the earths climate. CERN conducted experiments into the effect as well and while they did show an increase in nucleation they didn't suggest any climate impact from this, and in fact their biggest finding turned out to be that the vapors previously assumed to be the most important in nucleation couldn't come close to explaining cloud formation with or without cosmic rays.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/releases2011/PR15.11E.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037946.shtml

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4001/2011/acp-11-4001-2011.pdf

Overall there is little or no evidence supporting Svensmark's hypothesis and the phenomenon he is trying to explain is already fully explained by a much more successful theory so it isn't really needed.

Fringe theories do have their place, but to gain acceptance they need to make useful predictions or explain some phenomenon better than competing theories. Svensmark's ideas have yet to do this so they are a curiosity at best and tend to be advanced by people with deliberate intention to deceive people into thinking something other than greenhouse gas emissions is causing the earths current warming.

 

[Trakar]

Posted this in another thread, but I think it adds to the discussion here.

Today I got a nice email from ELSEVIER with the list of the 20 most downloaded Oceanography papers of 2011. It refers only to their Science Direct online platform, and goes like this:...

I think I would have added 11 & 13 to the "bolding" list as well.

Good post, good information!

I don't understand the conspiracy theories some try to attach to the science publication issue, but that is the predominant hand-wave I encounter with regards to questions such as you pose (re: "Where are the articles showing the oceans acting as predicted by a non-CO2 GW, or even a non-warming world?"). Most do not expound upon the details of their conspiracy theory and the few that do, quickly reveal that they have virtually no understanding, yet alone experience in the publication of papers in professional journals. They act like there are only a couple of professional journals and the "cool kids" have strong influence over these journals so only what they want to get published gets published,...this seems more like "projection" than critical analysis.

 

[Trakar]

Hi all,

I don't think I'm allowed to make this a new topic, and I don't want to PM you all uninvited. Could someone help me with the following? On another forum, a very strident poster keeps telling me about Svensmark cosmic ray warming hypothesis. Specifically:

I see his papers referenced in this thread, but not enough to formulate an opinion either way. Is there a consensus? Feel free to PM me if this is off-topic here. I'd be happy with just a few links to help me find my way. I'm not an expert in the field. Thanks.

Not off-topic for this thread at all! Svensmark is a good scientist and not disingenuous in his approach to climate science, he just tends to be blinded by his own bias in support of theories that have consistently failed to find compellingly supportive evidences and face mounting counter-supportive findings. You will tend to find his work most intimately connected to Richard Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis. Though I don't, personally, partake or participate in blog-science currently, I'm sure that typing Svensmark's name into the Skeptical Science site search will probably return you several hits with much better explanations and referenced rebuttals than I could easily and quickly rattle off to you. If, however, you are wanting specific technical issues addressed or you don't understand some of the arguments and rebuttals please feel free to bring those specific to the thread and I (and others) will try to help you make sense of them.

As to your specifically mentioned discussion and in looking at the paper itself, I see nothing in my first pass quick skimming that is out of line with the description given. Of course, this doesn't substantiate Svensmark's speculations and suppostions, nor anyone else's arguments based upon Svensmark's considerations, but these statements summarizing the basic gist of the paper seem reasonably in line with the paper's content.

 

[Trakar]

At least until graduate level, however, the science students are learning things that are so well established that there really isn't any legitimate room for asking if they are really true or not. As such weighing the evidence for or against can't really happen. This IS a correct answer the student is supposed to come up with and they will be graded negatively if they don't come up with it.

What ends up happening then is the teacher/professor has gives facts to the student and the student is expected to learn these facts and repeat them on tests. It's a good system for teaching the outcomes of science, but doesn't do so well in teaching the process of science. Not useless but it's certainly possible to get an undergraduate degree in science or engineering and never really learn how to weigh scientific evidence.

Well, I might expect this to be the case with some schools, and associate degrees/secondary minors, but even for community colleges that offer BS in science I would expect the upper division classes to include scientific rigor and critical analysis courses where students are guided to consistently challenge what they think they know and forced to support the underpinnings of their understandings. I experienced them throughout both undergrad and postgrad work, but I know programs and emphasis varies significantly according to the school one attends and even the field one specializes in. So, perhaps it is more subjective to one's experience than I generally associate.

 

[Trakar]

In my culture (general UK) scientists are commonly expected to do what priests used to do - you have a question, they know the answer. They are authorities and have authoritative answers. An unfortunate cultural dislocation, but there it is.

Well, we should probably distinguish between cultural/general population expectations, and what those degreed in science actually expect and understand about their peers. Toss in other equally well educated professionals and we get three seperate groups who probably all have distinct impressions and understandings of the scientific community.

 

[Trakar]

Climate change and evolution denial--the parallels

I almost blew by this without listening to the link,...I'm very glad that I slapped down that impulse and gave it a look.

Excellent find!

Thank-you very much for sharing!!

 

[CapelDodger]

What ends up happening then is the teacher/professor has gives facts to the student and the student is expected to learn these facts and repeat them on tests. It's a good system for teaching the outcomes of science, but doesn't do so well in teaching the process of science. Not useless but it's certainly possible to get an undergraduate degree in science or engineering and never really learn how to weigh scientific evidence.

I think the scientific method is taught more to philosophy students than it is to scientists, even post-grads. It's something most scientists only try to put into words if they're asked to, or find themselves having to defend the whole concept.

What you learn if you have a scientific career in mind is the protocol which has evolved to encapsulate the scientific method - the formal language and structure of a paper, a publication record, the meaning of "tenure". The scientific method comes along implicitly, and sometimes unrecognised.

This, I think, explains why good scientists in their own field can go so far adrift of the scientific method when they venture beyond. They don't really have an understanding of the scientific method, they've just learnt which way the furrows run in their familiar field and assume that's fundamental. It's a short step from there to talking through one's fundament.

"Gone emeritus" explains more, but at my age I prefer not to go there.

 

[Trakar]

..."Gone emeritus" explains more, but at my age I prefer not to go there.

LOL, don't worry, such issues impact much the same way alcohol does, some people are happy/funny emeritus, some are bitter and cranky in their glory. You don't strike me as "get off my lawn!," but everyone has their good days and their bad days!

 

[lomiller]

Well, I might expect this to be the case with some schools, and associate degrees/secondary minors, but even for community colleges that offer BS in science I would expect the upper division classes to include scientific rigor and critical analysis courses where students are guided to consistently challenge what they think they know and forced to support the underpinnings of their understandings. I experienced them throughout both undergrad and postgrad work, but I know programs and emphasis varies significantly according to the school one attends and even the field one specializes in. So, perhaps it is more subjective to one's experience than I generally associate.

It's as much the student as the school. There is a correct answer the student is looking for and the professor knows this answer and the student is expected to produce that answer when tested. Under these conditions it's very easy to view learning these facts as the point of the exercise, and you can graduate with good grades from almost any undergraduate program doing just that.

This doesn't mean you can't really learn how science works along the way it's just not guaranteed. Even here you will see a good percentage of the well educated uses fall back to science as a collection of facts.

I'm not saying more and science education isn't necessary I'm just saying that it's not enough and I think the result here (that science education doesn't correlate with belief/denial of climate science) is an example of that.

 

[lomiller]

I think the scientific method is taught more to philosophy students than it is to scientists, even post-grads. It's something most scientists only try to put into words if they're asked to, or find themselves having to defend the whole concept.

What you learn if you have a scientific career in mind is the protocol which has evolved to encapsulate the scientific method - the formal language and structure of a paper, a publication record, the meaning of "tenure". The scientific method comes along implicitly, and sometimes unrecognised.

This, I think, explains why good scientists in their own field can go so far adrift of the scientific method when they venture beyond. They don't really have an understanding of the scientific method, they've just learnt which way the furrows run in their familiar field and assume that's fundamental. It's a short step from there to talking through one's fundament.

"Gone emeritus" explains more, but at my age I prefer not to go there.

I agree. The only thing I'd add is that IMO the philosophy of science was never part of the design of those protocols. Once people had access to printing presses that they could see other peoples ideas, and the predictions those ideas would lead to testing them would be a natural next step. For the ones that worked the natural next step after that would be to use those ideas and predictions to make stuff and that's why science really took off.

Since it basically self organizes once you have a couple simple conditions in place the scientists working in a given filed doesn't really need to know why the process they are following works. The philosophy of science came afterwards, essentially with the philosophers playing catch up trying to explain why science works when their original conclusion was that that inductive logic was a fallacy.

While the scientists working in their own given field don't really need it, I think it's good for others to learn at least a little of what the philosophers have come up with to explain how science works. As you say, even working scientists who stray outside their own sphere can run into problems with weighing evidence.

 

[carlitos]

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[catsmate]

I think the scientific method is taught more to philosophy students than it is to scientists, even post-grads. It's something most scientists only try to put into words if they're asked to, or find themselves having to defend the whole concept.

Really? That was absolutely not my experience as an undergraduate; while their wasn't a separate course/module in "the scientific method" there were classes, as part of a core module, that covered logic, reasoning, scientific analysis and problem solving.

 

[Trakar]

Really? That was absolutely not my experience as an undergraduate; while their wasn't a separate course/module in "the scientific method" there were classes, as part of a core module, that covered logic, reasoning, scientific analysis and problem solving.

And real world application of general scientific method processes to everyday issues (I thought the class was a waste of time when I took it but it's one class that I still find myself harkening back to ~45 years later). I thought my education rather typical, it amazes me to hear others discussing how different their educational experience was.

 

[lomiller]

Really? That was absolutely not my experience as an undergraduate; while their wasn't a separate course/module in "the scientific method" there were classes, as part of a core module, that covered logic, reasoning, scientific analysis and problem solving.

I guess this is dependent on what they taught you, but the scientific method itself is takes the form:
Make a hypothesis A
Make a prediction based in the hypothesis (if A then B)
Test the prediction (Is B true? If it is your hypothesis is “correct”)

This argument form is actually a fallacy in classical logic or reasoning, the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. In fact no amount of correct predictions actually proves the hypothesis, and if we confine ourselves to strictly classical logic and reasoning we reject all scientific theories.

This is what gives denial argument their power over many people. Unless they are versed in the rules under which science is accepted/rejected you can reject anything by appealing to classic reasoning. As discussed above scientists in their own field don’t really need to learn these rules it just comes naturally in the way they work. For everyone else you would actually need to learn how acceptance/rejection of scientific evidence works and how it differs from acceptance/rejection of a premise in classical logic/reasoning, but this isn’t really well understood in many quarters even among people with a strong science education.

 

[CapelDodger]

... IMO the philosophy of science was never part of the design of those protocols.

Indeed. They weren't, I don't think, consciously designed but rather they evolved from what was regarded as best practice by the Royal Society at any particular time . Ultimately it goes back to the way Philosophy Degrees were awarded in the great Universities (reluctant though I am to credit Philosophy with anything at all, there it is).

While I'm waxing confessional I must also admit that my unwilling exposure to Philosophy as a child is where I learned my critical thinking. I followed the Maths and Science path but nowhere in there did it come up explicitly. It only really needs to when Science is under attack; it wasn't back then, but it increasingly seems to be so now. Hopefully it'll blow over as reality presses back in.