Chip Bok for October 12, 2013

Well said MStevenson – Even the global warming alarmists have been distancing themselves from the UN study because it is so full of junk science and unsubstantiated claims that they don’t want their names associated with it.

The sky is not falling.

I don’t have expertise in any of the sciences connected to climate, so I don’t feel that my opinion on the topic is worth much. I do, however, have expertise in my own field; I know what it is to really know a field and what it is not to know. Within my own field there are experts with whom I disagree, but I respect their positions, even though I disagree. We can try to work out where the disagreement lies and see if we can come to a better understanding. I also know that there is something like 90% or more agreement within my field; the disagreements are interesting, but they sit on a very large consensus. But when people who really don’t have the slightest idea what counts as knowledge in my field make grand pronouncements full of ignorance and misinformation say really stupid stuff, well, I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what they say. And when people who clearly don’t have the slightest understanding of climate science comment on it, I don’t take their comments seriously.

Hmm: “weather fluctuation”. In my home town the diurnal temperature (cold to hot/night to day) was a fluctuation of over 50 degrees F. yesterday. In my daughter’’s home town near Wellington N.Z., the diurnal fluctuation has only been about 5 degrees F.!!

The average “denier” I’ve seen post doesn’t have the ability to understand what diurnal fluctuation is, and apparently a thermometer is above their technical skill to operate.

I only have over 4 decades of experience with both education and applied observation of that knowledge in the fields of biology affected by climate change, and it’s causes, so hey, what the heck would I know?

Given the geography in my region, the “weather forecasters” have an average accuracy, especially in winter, of about 50%. It’s about those mountain ranges that break up the patterns coming off the Pacific, and create variable microclimates that change with even minor changes in pressures, and wind directions, among other things. But our CLIMATE over the last 60 years has been following a pattern of increased temperature, and decreased rainfall, especially in winter. These changes have been more dynamic than the paleobotany history over the last 6,000 measurable years has shown. Changes that took several hundreds of years (to over 1,000)to occur, have now occurred in in under 100 years, and that isn’t a good sign.

Harely: what was the population of the Earth in Jeffereson’s day? Did he have electriity? Did he drive an F-350, either gas or diesel? How many times did he take a 747 to Europe? How many plastic bags did he bring home from the grocery store? (btw: hemp was a valuable product, and they didn’t even have to smoke it!) Did he use natural gas, or whale oil and candles? What percentage of the United States, and North America was in old growth forest? How many native grasses were covering the Great Plains to the west of his colonies, which Lewis and Clark found?(How many remain today?) How many irrigated fields depended on deep wells and electric or gasoline pumps to deliver water to crops? How many acres were converted to agriculture? How many acres of native jungle had been cut down to provide for palm oil? How many acres in South America had been burned to provide for livestock grazing? How many grizzly bears were in what was to one day be California? How many rivers were damned to provide for electicity or water storage for cities over 100,000 in population, what we call SMSAs or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas?

Things have changed since Tom’s day, like how many back then had semi-automatic pistols that could fire up to 30 rounds in seconds, or rifles that could reach out and “tough someone” at over 1,000 yards?

Our environment, culture, and society have changed greatly, and the industrial revoluton wasn’t even a gllimmer in old Tom’s eye. Even inventors like Ben Franklin couldn’t have begun to imagine today’s society, or the impacts of our technology on the planet, let alone the population growth USING that technology.

Yeah, it’s like evolution. All the real scientists believe it, but that just proves it’s phony.

Oh, nice try! Too bad that (1) the author is not qualified to write on this topic, (2) he makes assertions that are not supported by data, and (3) he cherry-picks a “skeptical scientist” whose work has been described as “meaningless” by his peers. Nice try! And you have failed again!

Your “statements” about scientists only reveals how little you know of science and scientists. Sometimes I wish people like you were required to live without benefit of science. And see how long you last.

As I’ve said, I’m no expert on climate science, and therefore I don’t post on the topic. But I do have some sense of what expertise is, because I have some expertise in my own field, so I have a sense of what it would mean to have expertise on climate science and therefore be in a position to comment on the topic. I suspect that some of those posting here really don’t know what academic expertise is. So here’s a brief account of the training I received in my field. Of course fields differ, but I would expect anyone who has expertise in climate science would have something like the equivalent training in that field.+First I did an undergraduate degree in Classics – twelve courses out of twenty (the others eight were electives). I did seven courses in Latin authors and five in Greek authors.+Then I did a two-year MA, six half-courses, roughly half in Latin authors and half in Greek authors. The courses were pretty intense; there were never more than eight students in a class; my Plato class had two students, so we got a lot of individual attention. In that class we read a number of Plato’s middle-period dialogues, in Greek, of course; each class we had to translate selected passages (chosen by the professor at random), and in addition we had to be able to comment on the passages with attention to relevant scholarship in the field. And of course we had to write papers. I did courses in Tacitus, Thucydides, Early Greek Poetry, Plato, Propertius, and Horace. In the Horace course we read all of Horace (in Latin) in one term. Pretty demanding.+Then I spent five years on the PhD. The first two years were more course work. In my program, everyone had to do courses in Greek and Latin language and literature, ancient history, and either philosophy or archeology/art history. (The philosophers had a different set of requirements, as did the archeologists). We also had to take a research methods course, in which we were introduced to some of the more specialized areas, such as papyrology, epigraphy, and codicology. While we were doing the course work we were also supposed to be working through a massive reading list in Greek and Latin authors. At the end of the second year we took our qualifying exams; a three-hour written test on Greek authors, the next day a three-hour written test on Latin authors, and two weeks later (if we had passed the written tests) a two-hour oral examination.+In the third year we were allowed to begin specializing. Each of us picked a Greek author, a Latin author, and a general topic; I did Sophocles, Vergil, and Historical Linguistics, and I had an advisor for each of these. I then spent the year reading the authors and reading current scholarship, and I would meet individually with my advisor perhaps every two or three weeks. At the end of the year I was examined on these.+Then at the beginning of the fourth year I had to prepare a dissertation proposal, which was examined by a committee. Writing the dissertation took two years (many people take longer). And of course I then had to defend the dissertation to a committee including a major scholar in the field from outside my university.+Everyone with a PhD in classics has gone through a program more or less like this. Anyone who doesn’t have this kind of training would be wise not to have big opinions in the field. Likewise, any scientist has gone through something like this kind of training, and anyone who doesn’t have this kind of scientific training would be wise not to make big pronouncements. You’re just going to make yourself look silly.

I welcome martens’ posts, and those of Baslim and motive and others who do have knowledge in the area, because I can learn from them. martens posted on acidification of the oceans some time ago and I got interested and read up on it, and I found it very interesting; it got me interested in the general question of the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere, and I’ve been doing a little reading on that, in what free time I have. I am very happy to learn from those who know more than I do. I don’t pay a lot of attention to the posts of those who clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

I don’t believe people just because they claim to be educated, but I also don’t believe people when they are clearly uneducated. We do the best we can with the best information that we have at the time. Is there a better way? My understanding of science is that there should always be a measure of humility. But humility should not be the same as paralysis.

And Einstein said later that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.

Another point perhaps worth considering here is that a great deal of what science claims is very well established and not worth further debate. We don’t spend any time wondering if the earth is at the center of our system, we don’t keep testing to make sure that the earth isn’t flat, we don’t suppose that atoms are the smallest unit of matter, and so on and so on. These questions have been settled, and no one would waste time on them. My impression is that climate change is approaching settled science. If you have evidence otherwise, let’s see it.

So … we need better science education? Because TV meteorologists these days do a very good job of explaining their predictions and what the possibilities are. If you can’t figure out the weather, the error is on your side of the screen and probably explains why you can’t even begin to figure out climate change.

established science at one time

i think the cartoon says it very well, the experts dont know whats going to happen tomorrow but with a certainty whats 50 yrs in the future. arrogange beyond belief

3 kinds of untruths: lies, damn lies and statistics

Now the next question is for those of us who aren’t scientists but have concerns about public policy questions which involve science. Should we just throw up our hands and say “I’m not qualified, I guess I have to leave it up to the scientists!”? I don’t think so. I think if we’re interested we have a responsibility to educate ourselves as much as we can about the issues and the controversies. Even if we can’t do the research ourselves, we may be able to evaluate the quality of the research. Newspaper articles generally won’t be adequate; some of the popular-science websites are good. It’s interesting to look at the websites on both sides to see who has an answer for what. And then, for those who have a little time and a lot of courage, it’s possible to sample some of the scientific papers. A couple of years ago comments made by martens prompted me to read a little about the chemical interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans. I didn’t understand everything, but I did get a lot out of it. I would not dare to suggest that I’m in a position to make the arguments about climate change now, but I’m in a better position than I was to evaluate them. I believe in democracy, but I also believe that democracy works only when people take the time to get educated.

Another comment on tone of voice. As it happens, a few years back, when I was not yet a PhD I got involved in a controversy in my field. A scholar about ten years senior to me had put forward a theory which I thought was wrong. I wrote an article opposing his theory and then I wrote my dissertation about it. It’s not in itself a big point, but it turns out that it has some wider implications for the understanding of ancient Greek culture. At the first big conference after my article I was put on a panel with this older scholar, and each of us presented the arguments. He had some good points, I had some good points. The session was very well attended, because people were expecting fireworks. Well, I happen to be a pretty low key person, and so was my opponent. Moreover, I really admire his work, even though I thought he was wrong, and he could see the value in my position. No fireworks, but a good discussion. We had dinner that night and we got along very well, though we still disagreed. The controversy continued for some years. There were people on my side, and people on his side, and from time to time they would have angry dust-ups, but my new friend and I never had a fight. We continued to write about the topic (and about other things), and gradually we came to a sort of agreement, which I think has now been generally accepted. The specific point at issue has now been decided in my favor, but the methods my friend was using to support his side have been found to be very valuable anyway. So there has been an advance in knowledge. Controversy doesn’t have to mean hard feelings. My friend and I disagreed about the topic, but we kept our eyes on the topic and not on our personalities. As Socrates used to say, the question isn’t “Am I right or wrong?” but “Is the argument right or wrong?” I will happily accept whatever argument prevails, even if it wasn’t my position at the beginning. When we discuss climate change, let’s try to keep our eyes on the question; attacks on people are not going to help.

As I’ve noted before elsewhere, your average “denier” hasn’t figured out the mechanics, let alone the physics, of a light switch, it’s just to them one of life’s miracles that “God” guides their hand to make that device work!

Well, so far it seems that ansonia has correctly pointed out that there were a few errors in one part of Cook’s study, and that Baslim has answered with a description of the methodology of the whole study. It seems that on the worst interpretation, something around or above 90% of the climate scientists do believe that human activities account for most of the climate change. Is that correct? Please let me know if that isn’t correct, so we can continue with a better understanding.

we would need 1,000,000 years of data before we understood that we don’t understand …