FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Arctic meltdown...

   Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science
 


quex
Well, not to pluralize global climate change threads, but here is some concerning news.

I'm betting global dimming has something to do with the failure of models to perform true to actual events... the poles are the only places where collected data wouldn't be skewed by the dimming effect, so if the predictions were made on any sort of average temperatures from a range beyond the poles, they'll fall behind real event speed for arctic melt.

And another thing... *looking at article header image* Americans hear "arctic" and think "polar bear." Always, it seems. Why? WHY?
inphurno
another factor that probably wasnt taken into account in most models is the sharp increase in fluorinated gas emissions. while fluorinated gases account for a small quantity of greenhouse gas emissions, (with respect to volume i mean) since they have all have very large global warming potentials an increase in their emissions will have a real impact on the amount of heat kept in the atmosphere. another thing they may have not taken into account could something as stupid as when more ice melts (at both poles and greenland) less sun is reflected back to space, white snow/ice doesnt really absorb much sun...

as for the picture, its cnn what were you expecting?

Last edited by inphurno on Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Gagnar The Unruly
I'm pretty sure whoever was making those models would've been aware of all the factors you're talking about. They are the experts, after all. When scientists are building models part of what they have to do is figure out how the terms are introduced, and part is figuring out what coefficients and constants need to be used. Sometimes those values can be calculated based on prior research, but sometimes they need to be tested emperically with the model.

Remembering that scientists typically err on the side of being conservative, it shouldn't come as a surprise that well-considered models have a tendency to underestimate climate effects. My guess is just that the current models are just too conservative -- using coefficients that tend to underestimate effects, and excluding some forcings that scientists could predict would have an effect, but which haven't been as extensively proven to, so they were left out of the model. I doubt it's any thing as simple as that the researchers just forgot something.
quex
inphurno wrote:
as for the picture, its cnn what were you expecting?


...got me there. ^_^;

BBC > CNN
et-configs
CNN = COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK
quex
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:
I'm pretty sure whoever was making those models would've been aware of all the factors you're talking about. They are the experts, after all.


Never be satisfied by the "experts." This attitude strangles the advancement of science like no other -- especially in the era of pay-for-favor research. Question everything.

Quote:
When scientists are building models part of what they have to should do is figure out how the terms are introduced, and part is figuring out what coefficients and constants need to be used.


FTFY. And yes, agreed.

Quote:
Sometimes those values can be calculated based on prior research, but sometimes they need to be tested empirically with the model.


FTFY too. Yes, exactly. And because prior research is lacking (from a long-term standpoint), models are being postulated and put into use that include or eschew, intentionally, a wide variety of factors. Factors like global dimming and florinated gases (nice catch, inphurno!). New elements of the puzzle have yet to be discovered, and the right mix of relevant factors has still to be found.

Quote:
Remembering that good scientists typically err on the side of being conservative,


FTFY3.

Quote:
it shouldn't come as a surprise that well-considered models have a tendency to underestimate climate effects.


Bravo, there. True indeed.

Quote:
My guess is just that the current models are just too conservative -- using coefficients that tend to underestimate effects, and excluding some forcings that scientists could predict would have an effect, but which haven't been as extensively proven to, so they were left out of the model. I doubt it's any thing as simple as that the researchers just forgot something.


And again, well said. I, too, doubt that something was "forgotten," but am very suspicious that something might have been left "unrealized." IE, the use of wide field averages that included beyond-pole climates. A miscalculation so severe as a real-world flux of thirty years beyond the predicted progress (see article) would suggest, to me, at least, a fault in the factors of the equation, rather than the sum of all conservative prudence.
quex
et-configs wrote:
CNN = COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK


Well... hmm. I would just say "Crappy News Network," but...

Wouldn't CNN be more of a Capitalist, or Corporate network? o.o?
Dare I ask if there is a theory...?
Gagnar The Unruly
quex wrote:
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:
I'm pretty sure whoever was making those models would've been aware of all the factors you're talking about. They are the experts, after all.


Never be satisfied by the "experts." This attitude strangles the advancement of science like no other -- especially in the era of pay-for-favor research. Question everything.


I disagree entirely. If we didn't trust or rely on the experts of any particular field, cultural advancement would be impossible. We'd all be reinventing the wheel and nobody would get anywhere. Experts are experts for a reason! They know what they are talking about!

I would say that at least 99.9% of the people on Earth are complete laypeople when it comes to climate change, though we are depending on them entirely to take the necessary steps to reverse climate change. The message from climate change experts is crystal clear, but people just arbitartily decide that they aren't going to believe so-and-so statement or think the scientists forgot about so-and-so. I can't understand why there is so little faith in scientific progress. There are THOUSANDS of papers being written every month about climate change, enormous resources going into investigating this phenomenon. People fail completely to grasp the significance of the work that is being done by scientists, and also to understand how integral skepticism is in the scientific progress. Scientists are so much more capable of criticizing one another's work than the lay public, I wish people would just trust them and leave them to it. I can't imagine any idea could emerge on this forum that hasn't been considered a thousand times by scientists.

If you weren't feeling well and you went to a doctor, you would follow his/her orders. You wouldn't try to perform open-heart surgery on yourself, or disregard the doctor's knowledge as the product of some self-serving bunch of scientists. So it should be with global warming -- the experts have spoken quite clearly on this matter. People need to get with the program.
quex
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:

If we didn't trust or rely on the experts of any particular field, cultural advancement would be impossible.


Please note that "the experts" in the past have concurred on such varied topics as the earth being flat, the sun circling said earth, the futility of attempts at manned flight, the impossibility of such microorganisms as bacteria existing, and so on and so-forth. Those aren't, of course, the ones we call experts anymore.

Now, if we never trusted or relied upon the research of experts, advancement would indeed be difficult. Copernicus was not the first to present the heliocentric model of our solar system, Columbus was not the first to state that the world was round. They paid attention to their forbears, did some work on their own, and came to the same conclusions.

Quote:
Experts are experts for a reason! They know what they are talking about!


This statement would be valid if only you could adequately define "expert." Am I an expert on the agnosetian method because I invented it? What if someone came along who made it more efficient and correct? Would we both be experts? What if I refused to employ the more correct protocols? Would the students of agnosetian method attain "expert" status upon finishing undergraduate courses, graduate, or perhaps when they have attained their PhD?

Honestly, with the current state of the internet, anyone can become an expert compared to anyone else on any subject in a matter of minutes. A true and complete understanding is, of course, elusive... but then again, so it remains all the way up the academic ladder. No-one is ever complete in their education of a field except historians... and those, only when speaking about their own histories.

Quote:
I would say that at least 99.9% of the people on Earth are complete laypeople when it comes to climate change,


I would say that anyone with a fair memory who has lived in the same climatic region for a decade could at least tell you that it's indeed happening.

Quote:
though we are depending on them entirely to take the necessary steps to reverse climate change. The message from climate change experts is crystal clear,


This is what I meant when I mentioned pay-for-favor research. Do you live in the US? There are a fair amount of experts there that appear in government press conferences and are interviewed on national news who say that global climate change simply isn't happening. Or that it is happening, and that it's completely natural. Or even that it's happening, we're causing it, and that's great, because it will make more land available for farming and production.

These experts have their PhDs and their years of experience, but they're also conducting their research (or stating their opinions without research) on the grant dollar of oil companies. Oil companies, I'm sure you understand, have a vested interest in global climate change not being the fault of a human source.

The same thing happened when some independent scientists first began to inform the public of the dangers of smoking. There were suddenly hundreds of experts willing to testify counter to those few independents. And, unsurprisingly, they were (for the majority) under the umbrella of tobacco companies.

Quote:
but people just arbitrarily


FTFY. XD

Quote:
decide that they aren't going to believe so-and-so statement or think the scientists forgot about so-and-so.


It's difficult to decide anything arbitrarily when you're hearing every different possible opinion from equally credited sources. Rather than arbitrary disbelief, might I suggest that many people are choosing to disbelieve that which presents them with some degree of blame. After all, we are the ones changing the climate.

Quote:
I can't understand why there is so little faith in scientific progress.


HEAR HEAR!

Quote:
There are THOUSANDS of papers being written every month about climate change, enormous resources going into investigating this phenomenon.


There are NOW, that's true. But don't mistake papers for research. Plain opinions are put into scientific journals and passed around the world of scholars every day, floating on nothing more than the credit of the "experts" who wrote them.

Quote:
People fail completely to grasp the significance of the work that is being done by scientists, and also to understand how integral skepticism is in the scientific progress.


QUOTED FOR TRUTH. Skepticism, second-guessing, questioning everything... that's what I'm all about! Why do we disagree, again? Oh, here it is...

Quote:
Scientists are so much more capable of criticizing one another's work than the lay public, I wish people would just trust them and leave them to it. I can't imagine any idea could emerge on this forum that hasn't been considered a thousand times by scientists.


My friend, you either have too much faith in the thin veins of established science, or not enough faith in the unfathomable breadth of the human mind. Do you HONESTLY lack the imagination to think of something never thought of before? Try hard. I'm sure you can. (And if, when you are done, it seems at all feasible that your new creation could have been thought up by someone before, add a squid and a radio to it somewhere.)

The lay public has the right and the duty to ask questions of it's most learned members. Questions are the catalyst. Not just physicists asking physicists and archaeologists asking archaeologists; we must ask over the borders of our specific fields of expertise and interest. Or, better yet, come right out of the blue and ask "them" something they've never even considered before.

Quote:
If you weren't feeling well and you went to a doctor, you would follow his/her orders. You wouldn't try to perform open-heart surgery on yourself, or disregard the doctor's knowledge as the product of some self-serving bunch of scientists.


Rather, I would visit several different doctors to get second and third opinions. To do anything less is irresponsible as an individual with a vested interest in your own health.

Quote:
So it should be with global warming -- the experts have spoken quite clearly on this matter.


No they haven't. There are still various doubters and dissenters under the influence of pay-for-favor, some goofballs (as there always are and shall forever be), and some genuine skeptics who are in need of clear convincing. All of these messages reach the public with uneven clarity. It's a sorry state of affairs.

Quote:
People need to get with the program.


Amen.

I see your attitude towards this matter in the lens of global climate change has been built to stand against the skeptics who are skeptical out of ignorance or bad information. Please do not let that dissuade you from the power of skepticism itself. I, for one, would like to made clear that I am strongly convinced of current global climate change as a real, immediate, and largely man-made phenomenon. I do not, however, place my unwavering faith in the science and research of any one or several men. We are all fallible -- "experts" or otherwise. Therefore, I feel it is my duty to continue to question everything, always, and when I am satisfied, to ask new questions.

This is the process by which science advances and the human condition improves.
Gagnar The Unruly
quex wrote:
Please note that "the experts" in the past have concurred on such varied topics as the earth being flat, the sun circling said earth, the futility of attempts at manned flight, the impossibility of such microorganisms as bacteria existing, and so on and so-forth. Those aren't, of course, the ones we call experts anymore.


The scientific process has been refined and formalized a great deal since most of the examples you cite, so the failure of scientists in those cases may not be relevant today. I think you will find that most modern scientists are willing to change their views in the light of solid evidence, and are also interested in investigating new paradigms.

I think you may be underestimating how much work is involved in becoming an expert in a scientific field. While I think that many arguments on the internet are settled in favor of whoever can quote wikipedia most effectively, I also know that a person who spends a few minutes googling an environmental issue is far from an expert in environmental science. In reality, a person must spend hundreds of hours reading and discussing scientific papers and performing scientific research to become an expert in a particular field. Also, there is already an established way to (imperfectly) classify someone as an expert: a PhD.

Regarding skepticism -- unsubstantiated criticisms are as inappropriate as unsubstantiated hypotheses. In order to properly overthrow an established hypothesis, a scientist needs to come up with an alternate hypothesis, or at the very least, a specific and damning refutation of the accepted hypothesis. A scientist must be able to clearly illustrate faulty reasoning, an inappropriate research design, or a mistaken interpretation that led to a faulty hypothesis, when refuting a hypothesis. Doing this generally requires a familiarity with the literature and with the research methods that laypeople typically lack. Skepticism alone is insufficent. I'm not sure most laypeople are equipped with the knowledge required for proper scientific skepticism.

It is unfortunate that in the case of global warming, dissenters and professional skeptics are getting the loudest voices. There are some genuine experts who are rightly criticizing the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, but many of the critics are charlatans, as you say, under the employ of lobbying groups. However, don't confuse the lack of unanimity in the scientific community with a lack of concensus. By and large the scientific community understands that anthropogenic forcings are an important and reversible factor in contributing to global warming. The voice of the true experts is quite clear (though I'll state again that I agree that it is not unanimous). See the recent IPCC report for evidence of scientific solidarity.

Quote:
Do you HONESTLY lack the imagination to think of something never thought of before? Try hard. I'm sure you can.


You probably give me too much credit! It is actually very difficult for most people to come up with a valid scientific hypothesis or criticism that hasn't come up before. It's hard to keep up with tens of thousands of the brightest minds on earth! From my own example, I'll often get very excited about a new idea I've had, only to find out that it's already been discussed 5 or even 50 years ago. I think deep familiarity with a diverse set of the scientific literature is a virtual must for anyone interested in truly pioneering a new idea (or putting forward a novel criticism).

FYI, educated people have known for millenia that the world is round. Whether the world was round was not disputed when Columbus sailed. Rather, people doubted whether it was possible for him to make it across the ocean to India. In fact, it would've been impossible had he not stumbled upon America. Columbus mistakenly underestimated the distance he would have to travel to reach India by a factor of about six. The experts at that time actually knew the circumference of the world with decent accuracy and were right to think the journey was impossible (but wrong in assuming that the sea was uninterrupted by another major landmass).
Bikerman
quex wrote:
Now, if we never trusted or relied upon the research of experts, advancement would indeed be difficult. Copernicus was not the first to present the heliocentric model of our solar system, Columbus was not the first to state that the world was round. They paid attention to their forbears, did some work on their own, and came to the same conclusions.

Hmm...Copernicus didn't really do much work of his own - he relied unquestioningly on the ancient Greek texts for observational data and this is one reason his work contains many errors. In his entire life as an astronomer/mathematicus he recorded only 60-odd observations. I believe he also knew that his 'system' was fundamentally flawed and there is little doubt that is was 'borrowed' from the earlier work of the Greeks.
Columbus knew the world was round and the notion was not new in his time. The idea that most people thought the world flat is a fallacy - it was well known at the time that the world was round and the idea that Columbus was trying to prove this is another commonly held fallacy.
Quote:
..(snip)..But don't mistake papers for research. Plain opinions are put into scientific journals and passed around the world of scholars every day, floating on nothing more than the credit of the "experts" who wrote them.

Not in the journals I read, though I admit that is only a couple of physics journals and then only occasionally. Any journal of repute publishing papers which were entirely opinion-based would surely be failing it's duty and deserve to loose the 'repute'. Most journals in science are peer reviewed aren't they?
Gagnar The Unruly
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
..(snip)..But don't mistake papers for research. Plain opinions are put into scientific journals and passed around the world of scholars every day, floating on nothing more than the credit of the "experts" who wrote them.

Not in the journals I read, though I admit that is only a couple of physics journals and then only occasionally. Any journal of repute publishing papers which were entirely opinion-based would surely be failing it's duty and deserve to loose the 'repute'. Most journals in science are peer reviewed aren't they?


Some journals accept "letters" that are not peer reviewed and often resemble opinion pieces, although these may be rebutted (and then defended by the original author). The bulk of the literature is peer-reviewed. Most of the journals that are relevant to my field are peer reviewed, the big exception being the recent crop of electronic journals that have varying standards of review. Of course, scientists know what those standards are and read articles in those journals with an extra helping of salt. My opinion of the peer review and editorial process used by journals is mostly good, although my experience so far is limited. People in general seem to have a very warped perspective on the process of scientific research and publication.
spinout
quex wrote:
Well, not to pluralize global climate change threads, but here is some concerning news.

I'm betting global dimming has something to do with the failure of models to perform true to actual events... the poles are the only places where collected data wouldn't be skewed by the dimming effect, so if the predictions were made on any sort of average temperatures from a range beyond the poles, they'll fall behind real event speed for arctic melt.

And another thing... *looking at article header image* Americans hear "arctic" and think "polar bear." Always, it seems. Why? WHY?


I just saw in a paper called Aftonbladet ( the evening paper - translated) , that is our most concerning media in sweden of the global warming, that my house will be under water in 50 years or so... Our coastline will have water up to 3 meters (more than 10 feet) higher waterlevel...

Well, once upon a time the ice pushed our land downwards - it still rises... now we will get water on the landmass again.

The worst problem will be the sun - no protection against the beams - I am afraid to let the kids out in the sun...

But we have had warmer wheater here lately - quite nice actually... we mostly have cold cold winters...
quex
Alright, I'll keep this short:

Gagnar The Unruly wrote:
The scientific process has been refined and formalized a great deal since most of the examples you cite, so the failure of scientists in those cases may not be relevant today. I think you will find that most modern scientists are willing to change their views in the light of solid evidence, and are also interested in investigating new paradigms.


Most, yes. Thank god. But where politics and the actual spread of the message is concerned, the ones with the most money and widest network of connections always have a louder voice. The skeptics, in this case, powered by corporate energy entities with great interest in keeping their profits up. The laypeople, as you like to call them, who so often leave the research up to the "experts" aren't necessarily hearing the voices of reason.

Quote:
While I think that many arguments on the internet are settled in favor of whoever can quote wikipedia most effectively, I also know that a person who spends a few minutes googling an environmental issue is far from an expert in environmental science.


Absolutely agreed.

Quote:
In reality, a person must spend hundreds of hours reading and discussing scientific papers and performing scientific research to become an expert in a particular field.


Only hundreds? I'd say we well pass into the thousands, but, eh.

Quote:
Also, there is already an established way to (imperfectly) classify someone as an expert: a PhD.


Imperfect indeed. I have met more batshiat-crazy PhDs than I care to remember. That's not saying that a PhD means nothing, but I am strongly in favor of considering it an award of achievement than a symbol of expertise. Getting your PhD means you've done what others before you did to get to a level where they could begin dictating what the next group would have to do.

Quote:
Regarding skepticism -- unsubstantiated criticisms are as inappropriate as unsubstantiated hypotheses. In order to properly overthrow an established hypothesis, a scientist needs to come up with an alternate hypothesis, or at the very least, a specific and damning refutation of the accepted hypothesis. A scientist must be able to clearly illustrate faulty reasoning, an inappropriate research design, or a mistaken interpretation that led to a faulty hypothesis, when refuting a hypothesis. Doing this generally requires a familiarity with the literature and with the research methods that laypeople typically lack.


Oh, yes. If you're looking to overthrow an accepted theory, you need a hell of a lot of backup. To the Nth degree. But, what if you're just looking to stretch the theory? Imagination is well and often applied to science, is it not?

Quote:
Skepticism alone is insufficent.


...but necessary, I think we can agree.

Quote:
I'm not sure most laypeople are equipped with the knowledge required for proper scientific skepticism.


Alas, it's true. But those who can, should.

Quote:
It is unfortunate that in the case of global warming, dissenters and professional skeptics are getting the loudest voices. There are some genuine experts who are rightly criticizing the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, but many of the critics are charlatans, as you say, under the employ of lobbying groups. However, don't confuse the lack of unanimity in the scientific community with a lack of concensus. By and large the scientific community understands that anthropogenic forcings are an important and reversible factor in contributing to global warming. The voice of the true experts is quite clear (though I'll state again that I agree that it is not unanimous). See the recent IPCC report for evidence of scientific solidarity.


Good show. And yes, I do personally believe the IPCC report was quite a turning point.

Quote:
It is actually very difficult for most people to come up with a valid scientific hypothesis or criticism that hasn't come up before.


If it really is, then that's sad. I've been trying very hard not to believe so for many years.

Quote:
From my own example, I'll often get very excited about a new idea I've had, only to find out that it's already been discussed 5 or even 50 years ago.


Well, that shouldn't stop you! Change the idea. Take it forward. Add something. (squid, radio, etc.)


Quote:
FYI, educated people have known for millenia that the world is round. Whether the world was round was not disputed when Columbus sailed. Rather, people doubted whether it was possible for him to make it across the ocean to India. In fact, it would've been impossible had he not stumbled upon America. Columbus mistakenly underestimated the distance he would have to travel to reach India by a factor of about six. The experts at that time actually knew the circumference of the world with decent accuracy and were right to think the journey was impossible (but wrong in assuming that the sea was uninterrupted by another major landmass).


Medetashi, medetashi. ^_^ Well done.

I have come to understand your stance, and I thank you sincerely for taking the time to elucidate upon all of it for my benefit. Let us agree to disagree. You shall be of your opinion, which I dare not shame by attempting to summarize in the face of its author, and I will give the sum of mine as this: that both the questions of the layman and the entrenched expert are of vital importance to the advancement of science (and with it, humankind) in the era of information. It is, therefore, the duty of all persons to question and be curious of all things, with or without a comprehensive understanding thereof.

I think I should very much like to disagree with you again sometime in the future. Cheers!
quex
....and this is, in my opinion, a rather complete, compact history of the "global warming vs. politics" game in an easy-to-show-to-your-class format.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/view/

(Streaming video, watch online.)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.