Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] just for fun



One of the confusing issues here that really gets us chasing our tails is 'just what is the consensus view?' Certainly it is that the earth has warmed over the last century, certainly that the CO-2 levels have risen dramatically especially over the past 50 years, AND that there is a connection between these. Where the consensus is weaker involves the extent that the warming is due to the CO-2 which models certainly support but long-term historical records are more confusing since those tend to show CO-2 changes lagging temperature changes. The likelihood of outcomes (extremes) also lacks strong consensus as even the IPCC has backed down some of their 'worst case' scenarios as new reports are released. Certainly there is, I think, little consensus on just what to do in the short term (more consensus for the long term). There scientist run up against politics and economics. 'Back to the stone-age' may be a solution, but no one outside the extreme environmentalist groups is suggesting that...but how fast and how extreme should action be? My work suggests that weaning the world off of carbon (fossil fuels) is likely to take a century and will be expensive enough to weigh a quick move in that direction against the cost of possible environmental damage. Anyway--less consensus here.

I think the 'talking heads' of the far right and far left have pushed the rational discussions to the extremes which then makes it difficult for the lay-person to really evaluate the scientific consensus versus the political consensus versus the economic consensus--or just knowing what those views actually are. It would really help if ALL of these could be brought back to the middle!

rwt

To add to John's comments, it is unreasonable to expect scientists to ignore the consensus view until and unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.

I am not surprised from the references below that we have a better understanding (both scientifically and in the general public) of health and medicine now than we did in 1990s. Surely we know more now than we did 10, 50, 100 years ago. And sure, there were critics of the consensus view, there always are and sometimes they are right. But it is an error of historical perspective to think the people of the 1990s were stupid or naive or only politically motivated to base their health recommendations on the studies at hand; they evaluated the data and came to a consensus that, Taubes not withstanding, was not entirely incorrect (and Taubes hypothesis that carbohydrates are more dangerous than fat is certainly not supported by current data). This is like faulting generations before the 1960s for not using seat belts; they didn't exist. Consensus changes because we learn more, not because the people agreeing on the consensus were stupid or uninformed or ignored their critics. It would be f
olly to investigate alchemy today but it was totally a rational pursuit in the days before a solid understanding of chemistry. Newton was not irrational for trying to do experiments in alchemy, there was no consensus.

As to human caused climate change, I think it is quite irrational to reject the evidence out of hand. If I were a climate scientist (or any scientist, really) and came to doubt anthropogenic caused climate change I would work like hell to find undeniable evidence that overturned the consensus view (guaranteeing myself an important place in the history of science). But I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me until I had that empirical data at hand. You cannot falsify a scientific claim by citing political bias, financial gain or past errors that other scientists or governments have made. The consensus on fat in the diet was overturned (well, actually just modified/refined) by better data, not political wrangling (and not until 2001, a decade after the recommendations of 1988).

I have been reading the science journals on climate (NOT the popular press) for about a dozen years. In my view there has been a honest attempt by many climate scientists to answer or respond to serious (empirically based) criticisms of the consensus view and a frank assessment of what we do and don't know. There are numerous examples on the RealClimate web page: The slowing of warming in the past decade is an example; this issue has not been ignored or swept under the rug (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/). Cosmic rays as a possible source of climate variability has been addressed (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/).

The great thing about science is we can and are suppose to change our minds if we get better information. So far on the climate consensus I don't see convincing science to the contrary.



---------------------------------
If we knew what is was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

kyle forinash
kforinas@ius.edu<mailto:kforinas@ius.edu>
http://homepages.ius.edu/kforinas




--
Richard Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College

free Physics educational software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html