Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[Puck]

While listening to educated opinions is worthwhile blind trust simply because “they’re the experts”, without fully understanding why they're saying what they're saying, doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

This assumes that one has the education and initiation to understand the science behind recondite subjects. Critisims against meteorologists, economists and physicians have been used to dismiss and demonize climatologists. The complex climate modeling and metrics gets dismissed by skeptics spouting fourth grade level science with a "gotcha" attitude. The past year or so things have been quieter. Maybe we have turned the corner.

That being said, a scientific education should enable us to know when the scientific method has been followed and when it has not and the value of peer review.

 

[TCD]

I agree that we need to act. IMHO, the simplest action is to artificially increase the price of fosil fuels in a steady, predetermined program over a period of several years. It's only money, not policy, that will make this happen. For example, one of the main reasons we keep demanding big vehicles is because market fluctuation has trained car buyers that the price of gas will eventually go back down. If everyone, both car buyers and car makers, knew for sure that gas was going to be $3 this year, $3.50 in 2010, $4 in 2011, etc,. until it would hold steady at $6, then buyers would demand more efficient cars (and public transit), and car makers would know what to tool up for.

I'm not sure I agree that China is far ahead of us, when soot and filth from Chinese manufacturing regularly blankets our west coast.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL20648823

TCD

 

[SteveHiker]

This assumes that one has the education and initiation to understand the science behind recondite subjects. Critisims against meteorologists, economists and physicians have been used to dismiss and demonize climatologists. The complex climate modeling and metrics gets dismissed by skeptics spouting fourth grade level science with a "gotcha" attitude. The past year or so things have been quieter. Maybe we have turned the corner.

That being said, a scientific education should enable us to know when the scientific method has been followed and when it has not and the value of peer review.

So there's one of the insults that Barbarossa was talking about. Unless you can cite someone "spouting fourth grade level science".

And why so quick to dismiss 4th grade science? It seems as though a quick check of 4th grade math might have kept the financial "experts" out of trouble. So maybe there's something to it after all.

For me, what I find most disturbing is the persistent claims that the "science is settled". Not so or it wouldn't be called science, it would be called something else, religion perhaps? The evidence is quite strong now, but that can always change (not saying that it will).

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Apa Sherpa climbs Everest for 19th time.....

....to raise awareness of Global Warming in the Himalaya.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8061443.stm

 

[Stash]

While not intending to dismiss the value of a peer review or education, the selective application of knowledge can be as dangerous as ignorance. When a group has common education and experiences (peers) they will tend to come up with the similar conclusions and solutions. If this group “has control”, as in past years or now, ideas outside the group tend to be dismissed and demonized because they don’t match established patterns or goals. If, however, ideas from outside the group are viewed with an open mind a valid solution outside the norm might present its self. If ideas are presented for review outside the group and those reviews are genuinely accepted a previously flaw in the logic might be seen.

I have no intent of denying that there is a problem to be solved and that valid statements have not been ignored for invalid reasons. My point is simply to avoid swinging the pendulum too far and ignoring some ideas that might come from outside the group. Whether that group be scientists or politicians. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[Puck]

So there's one of the insults that Barbarossa was talking about. Unless you can cite someone "spouting fourth grade level science".

And why so quick to dismiss 4th grade science?

strawman alert Without putting words in or taking words out of my mouth, I said "The complex climate modeling and metrics gets dismissed by skeptics spouting fourth grade level science with a "gotcha" attitude." I don't see anyone doing this on this thread do you. Barbarrossa stated that within his circles nobody has been able to honestly directly address his point without histrionics. I don't see how he was being dismissive of AGW. His quesstion was addressed by an expert in under 155 words.

It seems as though a quick check of 4th grade math might have kept the financial "experts" out of trouble. So maybe there's something to it after all.

Non argument. Doesn't this belong in the economic meltdown thread? Your portfolio tanking, or hearburn misdiagnosis or rained out hike are not matters of the GW debate. I suggest you take them up with your economist, physician or local meterologist.

But to clarify my point; there are plenty examples of the fourth grade science level argument employed in the gottcha game. eg. "Earth has had warming periods before therefore GW doesn't exit. gottcha!" or "The sun puts out different amounts of energy. We are in a period of increased solor output, therefor global warming doesn't exit. Gottcha!" and so on. Which is rather insulting considering the experts, the ones with the degrees that took ten or more years of study to ear, have already incorporated these variables into the modeling.

For me, what I find most disturbing is the persistent claims that the "science is settled". Not so or it wouldn't be called science, it would be called something else, religion perhaps? The evidence is quite strong now, but that can always change (not saying that it will).

Good point. Hypotheticaly speaking I hope the settled paridgm does not exclude any data or research from peer review that dissents with the ensconced theories. But that is a concern with all science.

 

[Puck]

... When a group has common education and experiences (peers) they will tend to come up with the similar conclusions and solutions. If this group “has control”, as in past years or now, ideas outside the group tend to be dismissed and demonized because they don’t match established patterns or goals. If, however, ideas from outside the group are viewed with an open mind a valid solution outside the norm might present its self. If ideas are presented for review outside the group and those reviews are genuinely accepted a previously flaw in the logic might be seen.

I have no intent of denying that there is a problem to be solved and that valid statements have not been ignored for invalid reasons. My point is simply to avoid swinging the pendulum too far and ignoring some ideas that might come from outside the group. Whether that group be scientists or politicians. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

You are actually accussing the editors and review boards of the AAAS and other publishers of journals of bias and colusion. What is the bases? Or are you speaking hypotheticaly?

 

[TCD]

I don't think he's acusing anyone of bias or collusion, which are active unethical behaviors.

Look up "groupthink." The term was coined a few decades ago to describe certain group behaviors. The definition in my Organizational Behavior text was: "When consensus seeking becomes so dominant that it tends to prevent consideration of alternatives."

TCD

 

[Stash]

You are actually accussing the editors and review boards of the AAAS and other publishers of journals of bias and colusion. What is the bases? Or are you speaking hypotheticaly?

No accusation intended. Had I intended that I would have made a much more direct statement and only if I had a direct example to back it up.

I considered using TCD's "groupthink" reference as that is exactly my point. When a group has a common base of knowledge I believe they will tend to come to common conclusions. It sometimes takes an unorthodox viewpoint to get the group to look in a new direction. As I said; I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm merely stating that there may be other places to look for an answer. Or has science already discovered everything there is to discover???

 

[Puck]

StashZdanuk
I have found by following the GW for years that the peer reviewed journals have been bashed with a very broad brush , undeservingly so. They do serve as watch dogs to make sure methodolgies are followed.

The points you raised then backed up by TCD are valid generaly speaking. I have studied the topic of ensconced paradigms and exclusion as an undergrad with a History of Science Major. Publishing bias does exist and I know of a study that demonstrated such among medical journals. We just need to be more carefull becaise some hard working honest people are getting smeared with our gernalizations.

 

[Stash]

Experts

...and the term "expert" tends to scare me. To me it implies that someone has attained all knowldge there is on a given subject or is the absolute best at a given activity. I certainly hope I never become a hiking expert. That would mean I can't learn any more about it and I'll never get any better at it. I'm not too worried about attaining it, though. There's lots I don't know and even more haven't done.

 

[Little Rickie]

When consensus seeking becomes so dominant that it tends to prevent consideration of alternatives."TCD

Excelent point and so true. How else can you explain idiotic decissions in the face of obvious truth.

Consensus just makes it easy to fit in with the in crowd, which seems to be more important than truth, after all when a committee makes a decission no one individual is wrong. Anyone that speaks out differently is a radical and is socially punished by the crowds rejection.

Pick your forum: politics, economics, business, religion, goverment, the school yard. It's amazing but sad.

There are so few true leaders.

 

[Chip]

(I will look for another link with a graph that shows climate trends on longer time scales).

The Vostok ice core data goes back 800,000 years, I think. Perhaps that could be reviewed here...again...
Edit: The Vostok Ice Core Data goes back 420,000 years.

I can't blame 41% of the population for being skeptics when, as an example, Al Gore owns his own investment firm that trades carbon dioxide offsets and at the same time, is promoting Cap and Trade regulations. This article is 2 years old and biased (at least against Gore), but it does contain some good info about Cap and Trade and the carbon offset market.

This article looks to be a more comprehensive review of the survey that Doug Paul linked to earlier. I think that the most worrisome info is revealed in this;

It's clear that, at least in the current economy, people have higher priorities. I still believe that arguing about if Global Warming exists and is caused by humans is counter productive. I think energy independence and reducing/eliminating fossil fuel consumption is where everyone's energies should be focused going forward. That is a goal everyone, except maybe Big Oil, should be able to get behind.

Without getting into politics, the fact that the argument persists makes me extremely suspicious of both sides ulterier motives.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

The Vostok ice core data goes back 800,000 years, I think. Perhaps that could be reviewed here...again...
Edit: The Vostok Ice Core Data goes back 420,000 years.

More recent Antarctic ice cores than Vostok, such as the EPICA Dome C core, go back up to 800,000 years, and Russian scientists are working on a site that they think may go back over 1,200,000 years. Greenhouse gases (GHG's) in the EPICA Dome C core have never come even close to being as high as they are at present. Some of the graphs in the Nature paper (second to last link) correlate dust with glacial/interglacial cycles, which support the classic 100,000-year orbital climate cycles predicted by Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch in the 1930s. Millennial-scale climate cycles, such as those seen during the past 12,000 years (the Holocene interglacial), and the recent dramatic rise of GHG's are superposed on these longer-scale orbital climate cycles.

I prefer to read blogs such as Realclimate.org at the second link, which is moderated by climate scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature, but realize that about 50% of Americans prefer to get their science information from other blogs, such as in the last link (ironically European, where only about 10% of the general population are AGW skeptics), which is in my view a fine example of how an AGW skeptic obfuscates good science. I have come to accept that 50% or more of Americans will argue that the views of AGW non-scientist skeptics deserve equal recognition to real climate scientists, that many feel that AGW is a sham because Al Gore stands to benefit financially by some AGW mitigation strategies, etc., but pursue science as career anyway and have never made a claim to be an "expert" at anything.

http://www.esf.org/activities/resea...tica-epica-page-1/more-information.html#c2252

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/indepth/icecore/page1.php

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/full/nature06763.html

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/20...-core-reveals-stupidity-of-agw-catastrophism/

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Interesting article in recent news -

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inRFaXp8ixkgLSc-zVGV8FwGGDSQD98S1JU80

Makes you wonder when the proverbial "tipping point" occurs - in the future, or has it already occurred - 5 years ago? 10? 20?

 

[Little Rickie]

The tipping point is a crises event.

It's pretty typical human behavor to respond to a crises rather than prevent one. History if filled with examples: economics, war, health, etc.

Obviousley the majority doesn't see this as a crises, yet, It is viewed as a financial situation to be avoided until something big and shocking happens. Then our leaders will rally, with great gusto, (or is that better said with great hot air) ready to fix a problem, they help create, by raising taxes.

Subprime mortagues anyone? The're on sale. DEEEEp discount.

I've seen it a million times, before you know it the tooth fairy sneeks into you house and your daughter is knocked up.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... before you know it the tooth fairy sneeks into you house and your daughter is knocked up.

Too much information here, Rickie, too much information...

 

[Stash]

Too much information here, Rickie, too much information...

I was going to say something about the Yankees but thought I'd let the late night TV guy take the heat...

 

[Stash]

I don't think he's acusing anyone of bias or collusion, which are active unethical behaviors.

Look up "groupthink." The term was coined a few decades ago to describe certain group behaviors. The definition in my Organizational Behavior text was: "When consensus seeking becomes so dominant that it tends to prevent consideration of alternatives."

TCD

Groupthink revisited.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/197918

With a bit of current tech thrown in:

"The Web unites—and it polarizes. Online, it's possible to filter news into what Sunstein calls the "Daily Me": a flow of information that only reinforces one's previously held opinions."

 

[Puck]

Groupthink revisited.

No one doubts that group think exists. My issue is that 'group think' 'collusion' etc is part of the denialist drone when discussing AGW. these terms get introduced into the discussion as pat talking points. It is a heavy accusation made in passive aggressive manner, by an association. Are you saying that the world's climatogists and the science journals are guilty of group think? Have they excluded articles that run counter to the consensus based on bias alone? etc. If you are not why are these issues being brought up without a cautious disclaimer? It is the same thing as mentioning alcholism or welfare reform when a certain ethnic group or race is being discussed. It may or may not be true for an individual but one can not broad brush the entire group. The autmatic response to bring up 'group think' and other actions of a hegemony in discussions on global warming is itself a form of group think.

BTW there was a thread on fatigue that contained a link to a NY Times article about lactic acid. A MD researcher propsed data that ran counter to the lactic acid paradigm. He was squeezed out of some medical journals. Yes it does exist but based on this one example I am not ready to bash all medical journals and all doctors. Are you?