I read this and posting and I do not find support for the 97% consensus that there is agreement about what will happen next in Earth’s climate.
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by popesclimatetheory
↧
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by popesclimatetheory
PA ++++++++++++++++++++ YOU ARE RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, natural variability needs to be studied first.
Most of the people on the different sides are putting most of their effort studying a man-made fraction of a trace gas. That is not reasonable.
It does sound like Carol Anne Clayson is on a better track.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by popesclimatetheory
If you do not understand what caused warming and cooling in the past, you will never understand the present and you will never correctly forecast the future.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by popesclimatetheory
Drop the word “and”. I read this posting, she acknowledged there is a lot of uncertainty.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Fernando Leanme
I drool when I think about the tethered buoy data gathering strings I would set under the Antarctic ice using a modified usa navy submarine.
↧
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Barnes
“Perhaps the best summation of the current state of affairs was by Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), who in a 2013 hearing on the deep sea challenge facing the United States, asked hypothetically where we would be today if we had spent half as much money exploring the ocean as we have spent exploring space”.
Perhaps the better question would be “if we had spent half as much money exploring the ocean as we have on co2 mitigation and subsidies to wind, solar, and ethanol, where would we be today?”
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by rhhardin
It’s a nice quick essay on flows and consequences.
I tend to dwell on atmospheric Navier Stokes equations being unsolveable because who knows what’s going on in the ocean, and the atmosphere problem is enough to disqualify climate science as serious work.
But there’s the oceans too, probably easier Navier-Stokes-wise because it’s not turbulent flow, but with too much hidden to get a start.
The essay does seem to accept that there’s science in climate science and it needs more funding owing to uncertainties (in spite of, I’d say; they’re disqualifying).
I see instead huge anthropogenic sociological forces holding the field together.
Look at what geophysical research used to look like, for instance Longuet-Higgens, just discovering interesting stuff and not asking for funding or for uncertainties that need to be addressed. Curiosity makes science. Incuriosity kills it.
There are nice bits of physics, but drawing them together under an official field is a mistake.
Bureaucrats of various kinds take over.
If a company is run by meetings, people who like meetings take over.
Usually they’re not the curious type.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by miker613
I am not arguing against studying the dynamics. I just think that good data is at least as important.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by David L. Hagen
<b>Intention vs Obligation</b>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/10152930276213968" rel="nofollow">Bjorn Lomborg highlights the legaleze:</a>
<blockquote>Lots of attention to the climate promises of China and US, but little substance.
As Reuters point out, <b>"the operative word is "intend" or "intention", which makes clear the statement is not meant to create any new obligations.</b> . . .China <b>intends</b> to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and <b>intends</b> to <b>increase the share of non-fossil </b>fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030.</blockquote>
E.g. <a href="http://sourceable.net/china-pushes-for-thorium-reactors-by-2024/" / rel="nofollow">China is working to develop thorium power</a>. In 2012, <a href="http://www.thegwpf.com/china-india-building-4-coal-power-plants-week/" / rel="nofollow">China and India have been installing about 4 coal power plants/week</a>. <a href="http://rbth.com/business/2014/09/29/russia_china_agree_to_develop_siberian_coal_40187.html" rel="nofollow">Russia and China are expanding Siberian coal production.</a>
↧
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by catweazle666
Very interesting and significant contribution.
Makes a mockery of this sort of BS.
I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: “I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over.”
Roger Harrabin, BBC environmental correspondent 29 May 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178454
There’s a long, long way to go yet.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Mark Silbert
Judith, great post and congratulations. You should be the proud academic “mama”. I still keep in touch with my Oceanographic mentor from the 60’s. I am now 67 and he is 80+.
I agree with several of the commenters upstream (popesclimatetheory, Fernando, David Wojick and Hank Zentgraf.
Dr. Clayson makes it clear that our understanding of ocean and atmospheric processes are inadequate to inform predictions of future climates, be they driven by natural processes or man made impacts. This does not stop some scientists from calling for economy wrecking drastic and premature measures to eliminate CO2 emissions. Somehow the UN and our current President have become convinced that if we don’t act now armageddon is just around the corner. Judith is a voice of reason saying “just wait a minute….”. It sounds like Dr. Clayson agrees with her, but given her position maybe she needs to be a bit less activist.
As a Big Science administrator Dr. Clayson is asking for more government money and programs to obtain more data to feed the models and fill the gaps. This is what agency and institutional administrators do.
There are a couple of views on more data. Some believe that more data is always good. Some only want to collect more data to substantiate what they already believe and don’t want more data that clouds the case they are trying to make. The ocean/atmosphere/climate problem is so vast and complex that the data collection effort needed to shed significant light on how it all really works is enormous. It must not be undertaken haphazardly.
Significantly reducing the funding of climate model research, meeting and travel budgets for IPCC scientists and hangers on and some of the psycho babble stuff that routinely shows up, would go a long way to providing more money for physical data collection.
I think it is also important to debunk the over the top hyping of the (possible?) cataclysmic man induced climate outcomes as a rationale for immediate action as well as unlimited spending on everything and anything having climate in it’s title.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
I like the image used in that link.
Cooling towers spewing massive amounts of Di-Hydrogen Monoxide vapor into the atmosphere. They really should ban that doncha know.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Steven Mosher
here is some music to people to enjoy with your Whine
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Michael
Judith is “very concerned”….on a subject of which she knows very little.
Concern very noted.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by stan
Joshua — the Jonathon Gruber of Climate Etc.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Philbert
An example of “humble confidence.”
As a young lawyer, Abraham Lincoln once had to plead two cases before the same judge on the same day. Both involved the same principle of law, but in one he appealed for the defendant and in the other for the plaintiff. His eloquence won the case in the morning. In the afternoon, he argued the opposite side with equal conviction. The judge, half smiling, asked him what caused his change of attitude.
” Your Honor, ” said Lincoln, ” I may have been wrong this morning, but I know I’m right this afternoon. “
↧
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by stan
Those who refuse to put a quality control process in place are obvious candidates for overconfidence stemming from ignorance. See e.g. academic research in general and climate science in particular.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by stan
Always employ the best possible quality control process. Those who reject the implementation of ANY quality control have to know, deep down, that they are producing a lot of garbage.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by catweazle666
It was doing OK until it got to this bit: <i>Luckily, a science is emerging, led by such scholars as Stephan Lewandowsky </i>.
At that point I gave up on it.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
