Consensus Science

[Essan]

And you're still missing the point about this discussion: yes, there is a consensus about plate tectonics and so on and so forth, but where is the established body which has specifically assessed the evidence and declared that consensus.

There is no such body, because there is no need to declare it! Do you not see, after all these posts?

Yes, because plate tectonics does not dictate political decisions, therefore there is no need to inform politicians that the consensus exists. Whereas with climate change there is.

So are you saying that there is no problem with there being a scientific consensus so long as no-one directly states it? What differnce does it make? Absolutely none!!!!!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yes, because plate tectonics does not dictate political decisions, therefore there is no need to inform politicians that the consensus exists. Whereas with climate change there is.

Exactly! So you agree that consensus is a political device?

So where in science is there a need for consensus?

So are you saying that there is no problem with there being a scientific consensus so long as no-one directly states it? What differnce does it make? Absolutely none!!!!!

Basically, yes. You can't "have a problem" with there being a scientific consensus because consensus just is (in the broad definition of consensus being "general agreement").

But the establishment of a body whose sole intention it is to state that consensus is a more dangerous thing. I'm repeating myself yet again when I say that this statement of consensus necessarily influences people. To suggest that it does not influence scientists is nonsense - although science should be dispassionate and objective, the scientists who conduct science are only human. It should be their main aim to eliminate their subjectivity and their emotional connection to their studies, but it's not a switch you can turn on and off.

You are trying to suggest that the statement of consensus is to influence politicians, but that there is no such influence on scientists? Do you honestly believe that scientists are immune to such things?

And finally, going back to your first comment for a minute, you have said that the point of this scientific consensus is to inform politicians, yes?

Then (going back to the original point of this thread) what is the point of the statement of consensus on the Chixculub asteroid's effect on the KT extinction?

CB

Edited March 21, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Essan]

Then (going back to the original point of this thread) what is the point of the statement of consensus on the Chixculub asteroid's effect on the KT extinction?

CB

To annoy me

But the usually reliable science daily makes no mention of any statement of consensus, only that this was the conclusion of this particular group of scientists after reviewing the past 20 years of research (no, I don't know what the point of the reviw was. It certainy hasn't surpressed research into alternative theories, hence a new study suggesting that climate stress killed dinosaurs. (I remain convinced it was a variety of factors that combined over several million years)

[laserguy]

The consensus amongst AGW sceptics/deniers is that the opposition is completely barking. An instance where "groupthink" may well be correct in it's conclusion.

[Admiral_Bobski]

To annoy me

But the usually reliable science daily makes no mention of any statement of consensus, only that this was the conclusion of this particular group of scientists after reviewing the past 20 years of research (no, I don't know what the point of the reviw was. It certainy hasn't surpressed research into alternative theories, hence a new study suggesting that climate stress killed dinosaurs. (I remain convinced it was a variety of factors that combined over several million years)

An interesting study, from the looks of it. This study would have been conducted parallel to the "consensus" study, since it has been published just a couple of weeks later. It is hard to draw a conclusion at this point about the effect of a declared consensus on this subject - obviously it has not had an instant effect, but it will be interesting to see how people in the palaeontological community react to the two papers and whether they side with one paper or the other (or, I would hope, don't actively side with either of them).

I do hope that it has no effect. Time will tell.

:lol:

CB

[sunny starry skies]

CB, I really need to enquire on two points from a couple of pages back: First, thi statement:

"And why would laws of physics need to be upended? Which laws? Is it a lot of laws, or is it just the one about CO2 being a GHG? If it's just that one then I can address it (as I have several times in the past)."

Really? You can overturn the physics of the carbon dioxide molecule that has been understood for 100 years? I await your explanation in the technical discussion thread with some interest. We have emitted more CO2, no problem there. CO2 is a grenhouse gas, absorbing and re-emitting longwave radiation (surely no problem there?!!). We observe both an increase in downward longwave radiation at the surface and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation from space, showing that the CO2 is blocking more OLR from escaping to space. We know that CO2 has a logarithmic relationship with temperature forcing, due to the nature of the way that the CO2 absorption bands saturate and broaden (the same logic explains why methane is more powerful as a greenhouse gas), and that there is plenty room for more blocking around the relevant spectral lines. This also explains why we have not had a runaway greenhouse in geologic history. We also know, from palaeoclimate and other sensitivity studies, that the sensitivity of the earth to CO2 certainly places us low enough down that logarithmic relationship for a doubling of CO2 to have a considerable effect. This is pretty sound physics you have to overturn, so I'd love to know how you'll do it...

The second question relates to quite how you think the IPCC has skewed the reporting of the science. You seem to be suggesting that they have omitted a host of legitimite studies and therefore have artificially created a consensus? Now, I am aware of a number of studies in reputable journals that propose alternative ideas for climate, but the truth of the matter is that most (if not all) of these studies have subsequently been found to contain critical flaws in their understanding. If you are then preparing a paper on the state of the science, you do not then include those studies. The media might like a bit of false 'balance', but in science, if the alternative view has been shown to be garbage, then you safely ignore it. One study confused degrees with radians. Another, recent study (McLean et al in GRL, no less), was not just criticised, but demolished to the core because the authors did not realise (actually they did realise, they just wanted to hide the fact in a figure caption) that their statistical methods had artificially removed the rising trend of temperature. These sorts of studies do exist in the published literature, but it does not make them good science, or worthy as a contribution, let alone a significant thorn in the side of a consensus. So what are these good studies that should have been in AR4, but were not because of an artificial skew? Can you name them so I can read them?

The consensus here exists because the science says so, and there is no viable scientific alternative, not because some committee has decided so. I know that every climate or climate-related scientist I have met (and I've met a good few) would dearly love to be wrong about AGW. Or more properly, they would be entirely happy for some upstart to develop a sound theory that explains all our existing evidence while not having CO2 as the culprit. This would give us hope that sea levels will no continue to accelerate their rising trend, and glaciers will not continue to accelerate their flow speed and retreat. There's plenty of evidence out there that junk papers can make it past peer-review (therefore the establishment blocking of contrarian science is a myth), so where's the good ones that would break/supercede the current theory? If they're not being suppressed, then maybe they don't exist? If they don't exist, maybe the consensus, supported by the vast weight of evidence, is a natural one because the prevailing theory is right, or at least right bar the fiddly little details (exactly how much, and how much melting).

Now back to much more interesting things happening in Iceland!

sss

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, I really need to enquire on two points from a couple of pages back:

<snip>

Hi sss,

where did I say that I could overturn the physics of the CO2 molecule? I said that I could address the issue, not that I could show the science to be wrong. Indeed, I have addessed the issue several times in the past, but for the sake of clarity I shall quickly readdress it here.

The physical behaviour of the CO2 molecule in the laboratory is a matter of scientific fact. However, the real world, outside of the laboratory, consists of rather more than a CO2 molecule in a closed system and a heat source. For a start, the Earth is not a closed system. What other factors may counteract the effects of CO2 in the real world is a matter of debate. The physics (and chemistry) of a CO2 molecule are not up for discussion, but the interaction of those physics with all the other physical and chemical effects going on in the Earth climate system is rather more complicated.

I have also addressed the issue of how the IPCC have skewed the reporting of the science with the links a few pages back. The omission of studies that "muddy the water" is a deliberate choice to make the science seem more solid than it actually is. Is that not skewing the reporting of science? Further details can be found by clicking on the two links within the link below:

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/62017-consensus-science/page__view__findpost__p__1796142

I see you're going back to the "to prove AGW wrong you have to present a whole new theory" argument. This is not strictly true, and we have been over this particular point several times in various threads before. AGW theory could well be broadly right (especially the "GW" bit), but with attributions of effects to mankind that seriously overstate our impact on the environment (less of the "A" bit). A complete rewriting of the science is not necessary, but I would suggest that the issue of "how much warming is attributable to man" is rather more than a "fiddly little detail".

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe we should list out what we feel are positive and negative feedbacks in the system and weight them accordingly? Sadly there is a swathe of negatives that ,once at saturation levels ,turn positive so we can argue the toss over them. We have the obvious ice loss revealing more land /ocean to heat. We know the crack in the arctic but glaciers seem trickier as the are on slopes and so the incoming solar may bee stronger than the flat land at the same latitude.....

I am not a fan of nature being a master balancer.More that she has areas of 'balance' but ,if the inputs prove to great, will step change to the next point of balance. The fact that we have not suffered 'runaway warming' seems to suggest that there is a point of final balance further up her climate ladder but we still look to be needing a 'step change' soon (in line with the paleo records).

[jethro]

This thread is teetering towards a more general discussion on climate change, please may I ask folks to post these more general comments in the general thread and leave this one for a discussion on consensus.

[Admiral_Bobski]

It simply doesn't make sense that all (or even most) of the negative feedbacks would "turn positive" at some saturation point, simply because that would at some point lead to runaway warming. There is no way around that fact as far as I can see, and since there has never been a runaway warming on the planet that means that we must be missing something.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that, when we find a feedback that the "pros" and the "skeptics" disagree on, there will be no resolution (on the basis of past discussions) as to who is correct. Furthermore, any "weighting" of those feedbacks would be purely subjective since we don't know any actual figures. But perhaps I am wrong - would you like to get the ball rolling, GW?

CB

EDIT - Thank you for reminding us, Jethro I should be reining it in a bit, being the starter of the thread! Perhaps we should start separate threads to discuss some of the issues that have been raised, so that they don't get lost in the more general discussions?

Edited March 23, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Yorkshiresnows]

It simply doesn't make sense that all (or even most) of the negative feedbacks would "turn positive" at some saturation point, simply because that would at some point lead to runaway warming. There is no way around that fact as far as I can see, and since there has never been a runaway warming on the planet that means that we must be missing something.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that, when we find a feedback that the "pros" and the "skeptics" disagree on, there will be no resolution (on the basis of past discussions) as to who is correct. Furthermore, any "weighting" of those feedbacks would be purely subjective since we don't know any actual figures. But perhaps I am wrong - would you like to get the ball rolling, GW?

CB

EDIT - Thank you for reminding us, Jethro I should be reining it in a bit, being the starter of the thread! Perhaps we should start separate threads to discuss some of the issues that have been raised, so that they don't get lost in the more general discussions?

Hi Folks,

Been keeping a low profile recently and enjoying the wonderfull winter that we have just had. I have also taken some time reading up on the science for the pro-AGW and against AGW.

One recent publication above all others has really taken my interest and that is titled 'CHILL' (I'm at work and do not have the author details, but you can search this on Amazon etc). In this work the author systematically has gone through the differeing threads that make up the recent IPCC reports as well as looking at how the various computer modelling systems work, what they include and perhaps more importantly what they do not.

Without going into masses of detail, the weight of evidence (and this is all backed up by peer reviewed and published data), that includes discussion on volcanic activity, the insulatory and reflectory nature of cloud formation, the changes in world cloud cover over the past decades (from satellite data), ocean cycles and solar activity as well as carbon dioxide point point very strongly (which I was quite suprised at), at a strong natural forcing of world climate towards the latter part of the last century.

The chapter on Cloud cover in particular is very interesting and indeed coupled with longer term ocean cycels (PDO etc) and solar output do fit nicely with several unusual periods of climate over the past 100 years (anomolus warmth in the 1940's, the slight cooling from 1950 to 1975 and the stronger warming signal from the late 1980's to 1998 ....... with a slight cooling evident thereafter.

I am not going to stand up and shout that the Co2 theory is rubbish, acknowledgement is in the publication that this may also be having some effect. However, there are a lot of questions concerning how Co2 can possibly exert such a large impact, when for instance cloud cover is far more potent on effects on world climate (be it high level insulatory or low level shielding of solar absorption).

Anyway, its all very interesting so would recommend you all have a look !!

[Gray-Wolf]

The latest I'd read on clouds was back last summer;

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39908

and this suggested that we'd not studied warming and clouds and just 'though' how things should be.

As it is (now we've studied them) they are not a 'help' in mitigating our mess but seem to add to it .

[Thundery wintry showers]

Now, I am aware of a number of studies in reputable journals that propose alternative ideas for climate, but the truth of the matter is that most (if not all) of these studies have subsequently been found to contain critical flaws in their understanding. If you are then preparing a paper on the state of the science, you do not then include those studies

Looking over the available evidence I think the authors of the IPCC have tried their best to be reasonably balanced about it, but there are some indications that in situations of doubt when difficult decisions have to be made (e.g. contentious studies/lines of evidence which may or may not turn out to be onto something significant) the desire to "speak with one voice" and support the pre-existing consensus influences the decision that is made.

That kind of confirmation bias crops up everywhere unfortunately- people can do their very best to keep it to a minimum but we are never going to eliminate it altogether. This brings us back to the fundamentals of the discussion, regarding the effects of emphasising "consensus science". The consensus is, in itself, based on very strong grounds from the available scientific evidence, but if we emphasise it too strongly, there's a risk of it self-reinforcing at the expense of debate, i.e. along the lines "the consensus is right because it's the consensus" (reminiscent of the "the law is right because it's the law" in legal debates). This makes the case for the consensus and against alternative arguments appear stronger and more clear-cut than it is.

My view remains, though, that the debate in the scientific field is still reasonably open. True, it is not perfect, but it's quite rare to come across subjects that are subject to truly "open" debate among the mainstream communities, so from that perspective AGW science is doing rather well. But among political crowds, there often does seem to be very little room for debate on the issue.

[Yorkshiresnows]

The latest I'd read on clouds was back last summer;

http://physicsworld....icle/news/39908

and this suggested that we'd not studied warming and clouds and just 'though' how things should be.

As it is (now we've studied them) they are not a 'help' in mitigating our mess but seem to add to it .

Hi Gray Wolf,

Well, I guess there will be a lot of controversy in this area ... which is highlighted by the IPCC acknowledging that cloud cover is an issue .... but of a somewhat unknown quantity.

However I come back to the book 'CHILL' pulished in May of last year, author Peter Taylor.

This lists several recent high level studies of cloud cover (published and peer reviewed) and any changes there have been over the past 20-30 years or so and more imprtantly, what type of impact that this may have on regional or global temperatures. It also discusses possible links in cloud cover with solar and ocean cycles.

It would seem there is a lot of published data suggesting a significant change towards the end of the last century and that this would definately have a result of increasing absorption of solar irradiance at the Earths surface, far in excess of any impact that Co2 would have had (using the IPCC calculated energy increase per metre square of land).

Anyway, all very very interesting.

Y.S

[Essan]

I come back to the book 'CHILL' pulished in May of last year, author Peter Taylor.

It also discusses possible links in cloud cover with solar and ocean cycles.

Not read it. Does it also discuss possible links in cloud cover with industrial activity, deforestation, aircraft and ship, etc as well?