Climate Change treaty....
Discussion
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I'd guess it were the Cambrian era (land plants didn't turn up until the Silurian IIRC, which answers the equilibrium issue), not the kind of environment that would suit me, but if it is just "changable" I must be rather picky.
OK so it's not an equilibrium (dynamic or static) after all, big surprise. What made you say it was - which blog said so?National Oceanography Centre said:
It is generally accepted that the carbon cycle in the pre-industrial era was in a state of balance (or dynamic equilibrium).
http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/GDD/bio/Carbon_Cycle/main_page_frame.html The point I was making is that it wasn't in equilubrium in the Cambrian as the evolution of plants in the Silurian had a major effect in beginning to establish the dynamic equilibrium that we now enjoy. That is what allowed CO2 levels to become so high in the Cambrian.
ludo or anyone else said:
The stability of the climate
This loses credibility for anybody climing such a ludocrous idea.This planet's climate is a chaotic non-linear coupled ocean-atmosphere system, it's always changing an cannot be stabilised. Including by taxation.
Your quote refers to stability within the carbon cycle but it doesn't metnion long-term or short-term cycle or both, and is in any case incorrect as shown by the carbon dioxide trend I posted earlier. This makes me think they're referring to periods of quasi-stability in the short-term cycle - if you look closely enough at any portion of a curve it will appear flat, ask the flat earthers. Exploitation of micro-trends is common for True Believer blogs, but exploiting non-equilibrium metoerology and confusing it with climate is more common, so thanks for an unusual insight.
More on Svensmark:
From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change.
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged.
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.
What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.
Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
Note for ludo: when pursuing this through the True Believer blogs, beware of 'straw man' arguments against the Svensmark result - he is talking about high energy cosmic rays of 10GeV and above, and low-level cloud formation - only high energy cosmic rays can penetrate to the lower atmosphere. Check the location of any cosmic ray detectors cited in blog rebuttals, the reasons for which you might wish to look into further.
“If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion. What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes).
to assume the 400,000 years is significant in just the 600million years life has been walking around is daft, it accounts for ( i think this is right) 0.0666% of the time elapsed in this time frame, it's a tiny static period of time, i suspect there have been geologically more stable periods of time in this 600mill years, possibly snowball earth, or very warm tropical earth with big stompy beasts. To assume our recent history of 400,000 years is significant is rather daft.
turbobloke said:
ludo or anyone else said:
The stability of the climate
This loses credibility for anybody climing such a ludocrous idea.This planet's climate is a chaotic non-linear coupled ocean-atmosphere system, it's always changing an cannot be stabilised.
Your quote refers to stability within the carbon cycle but it doesn't metnion long-term or short-term cycle or both,
For the last 8000 years or so, there have been no large scale changes in exernal (non-anthropogenic) forcings and so the climate has been pretty stable (+-2 degrees C). This is the dynamic equilibrium.
Nuclearsquash said:
to assume the 400,000 years is significant in just the 600million years life has been walking around is daft, it accounts for ( i think this is right) 0.0666% of the time elapsed in this time frame, it's a tiny static period of time, i suspect there have been geologically more stable periods of time in this 600mill years, possibly snowball earth, or very warm tropical earth with big stompy beasts. To assume our recent history of 400,000 years is significant is rather daft.
That is missing the point. There is no point in trying to predict modern climate based on the Cambrian as the world is a very different place and e.g. the carbon cycle is very different (there being no land plants etc). However the climate over the last 400,000 years is far more similar to todays climate, so is of greater relevance.There is also the point that proxy records get more unreliable the further back in time you go, so we can be more certain of more recent climate than climate in earlier geological eras. The resolution of the proxy records also decrease as you go back futher in time. We don't have annual mean temperature data for the Cambrian for instance.
This doesn't mean the Cambrian is not significant, just it is less significant.
prehaps i'm not wording myself right. The past 400k years have been stable, but historically that doesn't make it the norm given that it acounts for significantly less than 1% of the past 600mill years where life has existed. Within this 400,000 years there has also been some rather significant swings in climate regardless of CO2, we aren't that long out of an ice age. So to assume equilibrium that currently exists would last without human interferance is in my opinion rather short sighted.
Nuclearsquash said:
prehaps i'm not wording myself right. The past 400k years have been stable, but historically that doesn't make it the norm given that it acounts for significantly less than 1% of the past 600mill years where life has existed. Within this 400,000 years there has also been some rather significant swings in climate regardless of CO2, we aren't that long out of an ice age. So to assume equilibrium that currently exists would last without human interferance is in my opinion rather short sighted.
Myopic
But that's the idea in some quarters, cherry pick your timescale, wave your arms, and whistle.
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo or anyone else said:
The stability of the climate
This loses credibility for anybody climing such a ludocrous idea.This planet's climate is a chaotic non-linear coupled ocean-atmosphere system, it's always changing an cannot be stabilised.
Your quote refers to stability within the carbon cycle but it doesn't metnion long-term or short-term cycle or both,
For the last 8000 years or so, there have been no large scale changes in exernal (non-anthropogenic) forcings and so the climate has been pretty stable (+-2 degrees C). This is the dynamic equilibrium.
As a side note the human race was lucky to evolve when it did, at the begning of a climate optimum that provide sufficient food etc. We could very easily have been a footnote on the planets evolutionary history later discovered by a super sentient cockroach civilisation. There but for the grace of god go we, as it were. Given that we have been around for merely the smallest gnats whisker of time the odds are rather stacked against us in the cosmic scheme of things, we are for whatever reason quite liable to die out "soon". We are but a match flaring in the dark of an eternal gloom. (how very philosophical of me 
)
)Edited by Nuclearsquash on Tuesday 18th December 14:51
As a side note the human race was lucky to evolve when it did, at the begning of a climate optimum that provide sufficient food etc. We could very easily have been a footnote on the planets evolutionary history later discovered by a super sentient cockroach civilisation. There but for the grace of god go we, as it were. Given that we have been around for merely the smallest gnats whisker of time the odds are rather stacked against us in the cosmic scheme of things, we are for whatever reason quite liable to die out "soon". We are but a match flaring in the dark of an eternal gloom. (how very philosophical of me )
)Edited by Nuclearsquash on Tuesday 18th December 14:52
Nuclearsquash said:
prehaps i'm not wording myself right. The past 400k years have been stable, but historically that doesn't make it the norm given that it acounts for significantly less than 1% of the past 600mill years where life has existed. Within this 400,000 years there has also been some rather significant swings in climate regardless of CO2, we aren't that long out of an ice age. So to assume equilibrium that currently exists would last without human interferance is in my opinion rather short sighted.
Ah, I see what you mean. 400,000 years is a very long time with respect to human lifetimes, so if the climate had been stable for 400,000 years it seems reasonable for it to remain equally stable for the forseable future (e.g. another thousand years). AFAIK there are no known large scale changes in external forcings predicted in that interval, so it seems reasonable for the equilibrium to persist. On the other hand, if we apply forcings by interferring with the natural carbon cycle, that does give a mechanism for disturbing the equilibrium.The ice ages were all triggered by external forcing (e.g. Milankovich cycles), rather than the dynamical nature of the climate itself (although it was tipping points being reached in the climate dynamics that caused the feedback that magnified the changes).
ludo said:
The ice ages were all triggered by external forcing (e.g. Milankovich cycles), rather than the dynamical nature of the climate itself (although it was tipping points being reached in the climate dynamics that caused the feedback that magnified the changes).
I thought the last one was caused by the moving continents shutting off the Gulf StreamNuclearsquash said:
Given that we have been around for merely the smallest gnats whisker of time the odds are rather stacked against us in the cosmic scheme of things
True enough.ludo said:
For the last 8000 years or so, there have been no large scale changes in exernal (non-anthropogenic) forcings and so the climate has been pretty stable (+-2 degrees C). This is the dynamic equilibrium.
What nonsense is that? Where from?External non-anthropogenic forcings have dominated over the last 8000 years (and still do) solar irradiance and eruptivity led to the MWP and LIA over less than 2000 years's worth of climate:
At this point you seem to automatically post a hockey stick, remember that the hockey stick is an artefact of inappropriate methodology, random number sets give hockey sticks via Mann's approach.
Back to the thread topic, and climate beanfeasts on the back of IPCC, Kyoto and other fabricational edifices.
Comment from an IPCC reviewer on the latest IPCC report, demonstrating the quality of thought, independence and accuracy iherent in true Believer gospels:
In an email commenting on the IPCC AR4 review process Professor Kellow said:
I was a referee for Chapter 19 in the Report on 'Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment', and made in essence the criticism...that the whole exercise fails to take account of the increases in wealth that give rise to the emissions that drive the climate models, that drive the impact models.
It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful.
It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.
The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.
But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!
Very sad, very revealing.It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful.
It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.
The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.
But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!
Laird said:
ludo said:
The ice ages were all triggered by external forcing (e.g. Milankovich cycles), rather than the dynamical nature of the climate itself (although it was tipping points being reached in the climate dynamics that caused the feedback that magnified the changes).
I thought the last one was caused by the moving continents shutting off the Gulf StreamHowever ludo is right in that natural forcings overwhelm everything else. But then, ludo needs to explain how very small changes in carbon dioxide levels 'caused' the MWP and LIA (they didn't) involving warming of about a degree and a bit, then cooling by slightly less, when the planet was at about the same temperatrue as today - a bit cooler as it was an ice age and we're just emerging from one - with 18 to 19 times the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to today. How?
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 18th December 15:18
Laird said:
Look, this all very clever but can you explain this in engineery type terms? throw in the odd PID analogy etc?
I'll give it a go, but it will be very approximate:Consider a car suspension system. Drive along a smooth road and the car will stay at an approximately constant height above the road. This is the equilibrium state in which the weight of the car is balanced out by the force exerted by the spring. Note this is a dynamical system that can be modelled by a differential equation. If the car goes over a pot-hole on the other hand, the equilibrium is disturbed and the car will oscillate up and down a bit while the interplay of the springs, mass of the car and the shock absorber act to bring the car back into equilibrium (exactly how quickly depending on the damping factor). The spring, mass and damper represent the feedback mechanisms in the esnvironment.
Think of global temperatures as ride height and the external forcings (e.g. Milankovich cycles, solar forcing etc.) as the road surface. If there are no external forcings then the various feedback mechanisms eventually cancel eachother out and an equilibrium is reached. The road has been pretty smooth for the last 400,000 years (apart for a few pot-holes causing the ice-ages). While we continue to change the carbon cycle, the larger and larger the bump in the road we are making. However it is under our control, how far the car rises depends on how big a bump we make. If it is just a half-brick (as I hope) the car will settle eventually by itself, if it is a ramp, we are in for a bit of a jump.
The part this illustration doesn't explain is that it is a chaotic system with more than one stable state. If a pothole is big enough it can flip the car onto its roof and we get an ice-age or lose our polar ice-caps.
Don't take the example too seriously/literally though, go to the scientists for the truth, not some bloke on PistonHeads (including me)
Nuclearsquash said:
that gets us back to the crux of the question is CO2 going to cause any change, i believe not from my limited understanding of the science etc.
My limited understanding of the science tells me to trust the scientists who have a better understanding than I do. The balance of opinion is that it is going to cause a significant change.turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I'd guess it were the Cambrian era (land plants didn't turn up until the Silurian IIRC, which answers the equilibrium issue), not the kind of environment that would suit me, but if it is just "changable" I must be rather picky.
OK so it's not an equilibrium (dynamic or static) after all, big surprise. What made you say it was - which blog said so?dilbert said:
There's a really easy way to answer all of this once and for all.
We already have a satellite pointing at the sun. We can calculate pretty accurately the ERP from the sun. We know the geometry of the earth, relative to the sun so the only real question is the bandwidth of the sensors on the solar facing satellite. If it's not already good enough, then make them better.
Then do the same with the earth. Get a satellite that points at the earth, and again measures the total ERP of the earth. Just to be sure, integrate the results when the earth is illuminated, and in shadow.
The difference between the two power values, is global warming.
That can be done (and may be done) but we have a complicating factor or two on Earth, namely that the oceans store the majority of the energy in the coupled non-linear ocean-atmosphere climate system and at any one time there can be non-solar related reasons for the oceans exchanging energy with the atmosphere. We already have a satellite pointing at the sun. We can calculate pretty accurately the ERP from the sun. We know the geometry of the earth, relative to the sun so the only real question is the bandwidth of the sensors on the solar facing satellite. If it's not already good enough, then make them better.
Then do the same with the earth. Get a satellite that points at the earth, and again measures the total ERP of the earth. Just to be sure, integrate the results when the earth is illuminated, and in shadow.
The difference between the two power values, is global warming.
I've preveiously been an advocate of an oceanic thermal sensor network, that would give very good information about deep sea temperatures. I appreciate that it's an expensive and difficult to build instrument. The satellite solution is possibly more straightforward.
With the satellite solution (and with the exception of geothermal energy) you at least have a fighting chance to work out how much energy the sea absorbs, because presumably the over land factors are easier to figure out from the ground. As long as the sensors in the satellite pointing at the sun, and that pointing at the earth are calibrated against each other, and not to some third party standard, the results are going to have the required accuracy. If necassary, the calibration can be re-done at regular intervals using, both the sun, and the earth as the calibration standards.
Irrespective of all the above, my most significant issue is to establish (with certainty) the scale of the thermal problem. At the moment we have too much conflicing information, and what we need is a simple experiment with closed boundaries. With the exception of geothermal energy that is what the satellites could offer.
turbobloke said:
Also our planet is very tectonically active (also unlike Mars) and that injectd geothermal energy into the atmosphere from time to time as well as altering composition, and albedo.
Also the total net radiant energy flux will not be the most appropriate measure of solar forcing, given the impact of parts of the spectrum have on climate (e.g. ozone, and the UV band where solar variability spans 10 to 100 times the variability of the solar 'constant') but the major omission would be solar eruptivity, an additional forcing alongside solar irradiance which involves the solar magnetosphere energy content and related solar wind particles. Changes in the solar magnetosphere mediate the cosmic ray flux on Earth, this will alter cloud formation and thus climate via albedo.
From a personal perspective, I think that most of that is froth. Theres just too much of it. IF there is a problem, lets just find out once and for all, and stop pissing about with the froth. The more of that there is, the more protracted this whole mess becomes. Climate change supporters (and deniers are as guilty as each other over that one.Also the total net radiant energy flux will not be the most appropriate measure of solar forcing, given the impact of parts of the spectrum have on climate (e.g. ozone, and the UV band where solar variability spans 10 to 100 times the variability of the solar 'constant') but the major omission would be solar eruptivity, an additional forcing alongside solar irradiance which involves the solar magnetosphere energy content and related solar wind particles. Changes in the solar magnetosphere mediate the cosmic ray flux on Earth, this will alter cloud formation and thus climate via albedo.
I do accept that the geothermal energy issue is a problem with the satellite approach. Compared with the full onslaught of the sun, the global geothermal contribution must be relatively small. Allright we're nearer the centre of the earth than the surface of the sun, but heck I can see the sun from here!!!
Irrespective, we have a pretty clear understanding of the tectonic boundaries, it's relatively straightforward to work out the average contribution from volcanoes, and lava fields. Even earthquakes are going to contribute to the temperature rises, and I'm sure we can calculate those effects quite accurately, but realistically I think that is getting well into the noise.
I appreciate that the result from the satellite measurement is going to be variable, and in fact there wouldn't be much point in doing the experiment, if it all worked out to a nice flat line. What it will do is to provide a consistent temperature profile which includes the oceans, and when we come back an look a the trend in 10 years, the 0.2 degree trend is actually going to mean something.
If we don't do it we'll either have given up and won't know if there is a problem, or we'll still be here arguing the case for the existence of a problem.
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 18th December 15:56
ludo said:
Laird said:
Look, this all very clever but can you explain this in engineery type terms? throw in the odd PID analogy etc?
I'll give it a go, but it will be very approximate:Consider a car suspension system. Drive along a smooth road and the car will stay at an approximately constant height above the road. This is the equilibrium state in which the weight of the car is balanced out by the force exerted by the spring. Note this is a dynamical system that can be modelled by a differential equation. If the car goes over a pot-hole on the other hand, the equilibrium is disturbed and the car will oscillate up and down a bit while the interplay of the springs, mass of the car and the shock absorber act to bring the car back into equilibrium (exactly how quickly depending on the damping factor). The spring, mass and damper represent the feedback mechanisms in the esnvironment.
Think of global temperatures as ride height and the external forcings (e.g. Milankovich cycles, solar forcing etc.) as the road surface. If there are no external forcings then the various feedback mechanisms eventually cancel eachother out and an equilibrium is reached. The road has been pretty smooth for the last 400,000 years (apart for a few pot-holes causing the ice-ages). While we continue to change the carbon cycle, the larger and larger the bump in the road we are making. However it is under our control, how far the car rises depends on how big a bump we make. If it is just a half-brick (as I hope) the car will settle eventually by itself, if it is a ramp, we are in for a bit of a jump.
The part this illustration doesn't explain is that it is a chaotic system with more than one stable state. If a pothole is big enough it can flip the car onto its roof and we get an ice-age or lose our polar ice-caps.
Don't take the example too seriously/literally though, go to the scientists for the truth, not some bloke on PistonHeads (including me)
It's not quite as simple as 'going to the scientists' though as they are 'typically' unable to filter the data enough for a gibbon like me to understand. I think a good analogy is the latest child minder to be locked up for having an infant die in her care. The case was argued (and decided) by a team of medical experts, even the judge hadn't a clue what they were on about, now a juror has claimed a mis trial.
Like it or not we need people like TB and yourself to disseminate the data enough for the non scientific (especially Politicians) to understand, so that some innocent isn't locked up for nothing.
Laird said:
It's not quite as simple as 'going to the scientists' though as they are 'typically' unable to filter the data enough for a gibbon like me to understand.
Laird said:
I think a good analogy is the latest child minder to be locked up for having an infant die in her care. The case was argued (and decided) by a team of medical experts, even the judge hadn't a clue what they were on about, now a juror has claimed a mis trial.
Like it or not we need people like TB and yourself to disseminate the data enough for the non scientific (especially Politicians) to understand, so that some innocent isn't locked up for nothing.
People don't like uncertainty about the future and are reassured by certainty whether it is justified or not. Unfortunately there is little in the climate change debate that is both certain and has scientific support. If we could fully understand the details there would be no need for climatologists. As I said earlier, I know that few environmental scientists understand my statistical research, and I don't expect to understand theirs either (except at a fairly superficial level) and indeed I don't. However if you retain your scepticism of wild claims on both sides you probably won't go too far wrong. Like it or not we need people like TB and yourself to disseminate the data enough for the non scientific (especially Politicians) to understand, so that some innocent isn't locked up for nothing.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff