And they wonder why we call them "Alarmists"

[JohnB]

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html

 

I hope the 3 out of 4 of you that are due to die in the next 18 months enjoy the time you have left.

 

And for speaking out against this sort of utter bullsh*t we get called deniers.

[john5746]

Bah, you 2012 denier!

[CharonY]

So mass media are alarmist. Who would have guessed. You are aware that that is not part of the mainstream global warming models? In fact, I would be surprised to find any significant amount of publications on that matter.

 

Bibliographic reference courtesy of Brad Arnold who has an extensive resrarch background on Global Warming.

Well, after reading the page I failed to find the bibliography for this kind of "resrarch".

 

And more about it http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/most-idiotic-global-warming-headline-ever/

 

OK question. Who are "they"? Newspapers? Bloggers?

Edited May 18, 2010 by CharonY

[bascule]

[swansont]

By the way, the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory

 

No, it isn't. By definition.

 

It's crappy reporting. Speaking out against crappy reporting isn't why deniers are called deniers. It's for making things up and for crappy analysis when trying to rebut peer-reviewed science, among other things.

[Double K]

It's for making things up and for crappy analysis when trying to rebut peer-reviewed science, among other things.

 

Speaking of peer review on GW science, can anyone point me to some good articles regarding peer review, preferable unbiased if it's possible to find such a thing on the subject. I have been looking on google but it seems papers are all either end of the extreme, so if anyone can shunt me to some "reliable" or more specifically "objective" peer review I'd appreciate it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Speaking of peer review on GW science, can anyone point me to some good articles regarding peer review, preferable unbiased if it's possible to find such a thing on the subject. I have been looking on google but it seems papers are all either end of the extreme, so if anyone can shunt me to some "reliable" or more specifically "objective" peer review I'd appreciate it.

 

Any paper published in a decent scientific journal has been peer-reviewed by other experts in the field. Those with significant problems are sent back to the author for revision. The review comments are generally not published.

 

What specifically are you looking for?

[Double K]

What specifically are you looking for?

 

That's not as easy to answer as you would like to think...

 

I guess what I'm not looking for, is anything politicised.

I would prefer to see analysis of data, analysis of modelling methods, and scientific method, not just discussion but empirical analysis.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's not as easy to answer as you would like to think...

 

I guess what I'm not looking for, is anything politicised.

I would prefer to see analysis of data, analysis of modelling methods, and scientific method, not just discussion but empirical analysis.

 

You'll have to find a library where you can get access to climate science journals, or fork over money to see the articles online.

 

The scientific papers are what you want, but most of what you get for free online is reporting about the papers, which somehow never catches what they mean. Most of the reporting cites the papers, though, so you can dig up the original work.

[bascule]

And for speaking out against this sort of utter bullsh*t we get called deniers.

 

For what it's worth, JohnB, you are not a denier; you are a true skeptic and I very much appreciate that. It's unfortunate everyone who questions climate science can't be like you.

 

Also I have no qualms with you calling a ridiculous article like this "alarmist". This is very much an alarmist article.

[JohnB]

Thanks bascule, I do appreciate that.

 

Swansont, the article is from 2007. There is some sort of mix up in the headline dating.

 

CharonY, yes, I do know that this sort of rediculous rubbish is not part of any accepted model.

 

I add that I think bascules cartoon is probably pretty accurate and that reporting standards have slipped greatly.

 

However.

 

I posted the link mainly out of frustration. While both sides of the debate see this as stupidity and fear mongering it is only properly ridiculed by the sceptic side. The warmers say nothing. From one side of the debate the silence is deafening.

 

I think that this is why so many on the sceptic side view warmers as intellectually dishonest. They will speak out and attack strongly the moderate sceptics but remain silent when faced with the extremists on their own side.

 

(Granted, many sceptics are in the same category when faced with the "It's all a socialist plot" idiots on our side. Although they are called out more often.)

 

(Mind you, a "Green" plot I'm not so sure of. It's really hard not to wonder about them sometimes. Talking to some yesterday I pointed out that for their wonderful organic world to come about, some 4 billion people would have to die, as 7 billion can't live on subsistence agriculture. The response was "And? Would that be so bad?" People that can be blase about that number of human deaths scare the hell out of me. with that attitude as a starting point, is it really so hard to imagine that they might work to help bring it about? They're "Saving the Planet", you know.)

 

The Himalyan Glaciers claim in AR4 was wrong. It was objected to by multiple reviewers on different occasions during the drafting process. No reputable researcher believed it. Yet it was still in the report and nobody spoke up against it. Silence again.

 

Is "Not speaking against the Consensus" now more important than truth? Where were the Glaciologists? Speaking out against something they knew was wrong? No, it took a bunch of amateur sceptics to go through the paperwork and find out the claim was bullsh*t and publicize the fact.

 

A reasonable person has to ask himself. If the Glaciologists stayed quiet in the face of known falsehood, how many others in other disciplines are doing the same?

 

I put this thread in politics because it is more about politics and truth than AGW. It's an appropriate forum for a topic where defending your "side" is often more important than defending scientific truth and probity.

 

My "side" is, was, and always will be scientific truth and honesty. What is yours?

Edited May 19, 2010 by JohnB
typos

[Double K]

Sorry this is a bit lengthy, I tried trimming it back, but found every time I did it led to ambiguity or misrepresenting of the context, and so I paste it undoctored for you (although be aware that it is select paragraphs, as the entire document is quite large) see below for the link to the source...

I thought this relevant and something that (both sides) could employ to everyone's benefit.

 

Such critical skills, grounded in knowledge, include: (i) the ability to form an opinion for oneself, (5) which involves, for example, being able to recognize what is intended to mislead, being capable of listening to eloquence without being carried away, and becoming adept at asking and determining if there is any reason to think that our beliefs are true; (ii) the ability to find an impartial solution, (6) which involves learning to recognize and control our own biases, coming to view our own beliefs with the same detachment with which we view the beliefs of others, judging issues on their merits, trying to ascertain the relevant facts, and the power of weighing arguments; (iii) the ability to identify and question assumptions, (7) which involves learning not to be credulous, applying what Russell calls constructive doubt in order to test unexamined beliefs, and resisting the notion that some authority, a great philosopher perhaps, has captured the whole truth. ....

 

....The mere possession of critical skills is insufficient to make one a critical thinker. Russell calls attention to various dispositions which mean that the relevant skills are actually exercised. Typically, he uses the notion of habit (sometimes the notion of practice) to suggest the translation of skills into actual behaviour. Russell describes education as the formation, by means of instruction, of certain mental habits [and a certain outlook on life and the world]. (15) He mentions, in particular: (i) the habit of impartial inquiry, (16) which is necessary if one-sided opinions are not to be taken at face value, and if people are to arrive at conclusions which do not depend solely on the time and place of their education; (ii) the habit of weighing evidence, (17) coupled with the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true; (iii) the habit of attempting to see things truly, (18) which contrasts with the practice of merely collecting whatever reinforces existing prejudice; and (iv) the habit of living from one's own centre, (19) which Russell describes as a kind of self-direction, a certain independence in the will. Such habits, of course, have to be exercised intelligently. Russell recognizes clearly, indeed it is a large part of the problem which critical thinking must address, that one becomes a victim of habit if the habitual beliefs of one's own age constitute a prison of prejudice. Hence the need for a critical habit of mind.........

 

........what Russell typically calls one's readiness, to act and respond in various ways. His examples include: (i) a readiness to admit new evidence against previous beliefs, (20) which involves an open-minded acceptance (avoiding credulity) of whatever a critical examination has revealed; (ii) a readiness to discard hypotheses which have proved inadequate, (21) where the test is whether or not one is prepared in fact to abandon beliefs which once seemed promising; and (iii) a readiness to adapt oneself to the facts of the world, (22) which Russell distinguishes from merely going along with whatever happens to be in the ascendant, which might be evil. To be ready to act, or react, in these ways suggests both an awareness that the habits in question are appropriate and a principled commitment to their exercise. They have in common the virtue Russell called truthfulness, which entails the wish to find out, and trying to be right in matters of belief. (23)........

 

..........Russell also makes it clear in many places that it is one thing to know, for example, the principle that belief should be proportioned to the evidence, and quite another to know what the actual evidence is. Russell, as we have seen, stresses access to impartial sources of knowledge; without such access, our critical abilities cannot function.

 

source

Edited May 19, 2010 by Double K

[swansont]

Swansont, the article is from 2007. There is some sort of mix up in the headline dating.

 

Is anyone advancing that position now? I haven't read anything about this. It was sensationalist crap. Given that there has been nothing memorable presented in the interim, any scientific discussion likely ended up with the conclusion that the effect was small or nonexistent.

[CharonY]

If there was a discussion at all. If it is too strong of crap many scientists try not to touch it. There would have been a larger outcry if that was presented in a well-known science journal.

[JohnB]

I thought I might add a bit more for fun. One is decent science and reporting, the other is just plain pseudo-scientific mush.

 

All spin aside, I honestly think that much of trouble in the reporting of Climate Science is that when in a newsarticle, most people don't read past the first paragraph.

 

On April 29th, the University of Leeds issued a Press Release. The title being; "Melting icebergs causing sea level rise." The headline was repeated in the MSM and as far as I can find out by google search, the body was reproduced faithfully.

 

So somebody skimming news reports would see something like this;

 

Melting icebergs causing sea level rise

 

Scientists have discovered that changes in the amount of ice floating in the polar oceans are causing sea levels to rise.

 

The research, published this week in Geophysical Research Letters, is the first assessment of how quickly floating ice is being lost today.

 

That would look pretty worrying if you didn't read the full article. Because you would have missed this bit.

However, the study shows that spread across the global oceans, recent losses of floating ice amount to a sea level rise of just 49 micrometers per year - about a hair's breadth.

 

Not exactly earth shattering news is it?

 

Not being part of a University I don't know, but does the press office (or whoever it is that issues releases) need to go for the attention grabbing headlines to publicise the Universitys work? While totally factual, the headline seems a bit extreme considering the findings.

 

Now for the fun one.

 

I got pointed to it earlier this week and frankly couldn't believe that such tripe could make it to Nature/Geoscience. Many of those who look at the paleoclimate record have wondered what caused the Younger Dryas period, a sudden drop into full blown Ice Age conditions that lasted for a thousand years before reversing itself.

 

Well, we need wonder no more as the mystery has been solved.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo877.html

 

An article on the paper can be found at Science Fair.

 

Put bluntly, man caused the Younger Dryas event. That's right, it was anthropogenic. You see, with the advent of the Clovis people into America many thousands of years ago, those nasty humans killed off all the megafauna.

 

Now since methane is a potent GHG, and grazing megafauna produce a lot of methane, killing off the mammoths meant less mammoth farts, and therefore lower methane levels and so the climate crashed back into an Ice Age like temperature regime. (The methane levels did drop rather precipitously, but nobody has previously linked the levels to mammoth farts, so I guess her work is "new".)

 

See, you knew humans were responsible, didn't you?

 

For the further entertainment of our American friends, Felisa Smith was coauthor of a 2006 paper entitled "Pleistocene Rewilding: An Optimistic Agenda for Twenty-First Century Conservation."

 

From the abstract;

Large vertebrates are strong interactors in food webs, yet they were lost from most ecosystems after the dispersal of modern humans from Africa and Eurasia. We call for restoration of missing ecological functions and evolutionary potential of lost North American megafauna using extant conspecifics and related taxa. We refer to this restoration as Pleistocene rewilding;

 

Reintroduce megafauna to North America? Good idea, but what species?

Pleistocene rewilding can begin immediately with species such as Bolson tortoises and feral horses

 

So far so good, but;

and continue through the coming decades with elephants and Holarctic lions.

 

Won't that make camping fun?

 

Sing it with me;

 

Oh give me a home,

Where the elephants roam

And Holarctic lions

Visit the schools....

 

Keep your guns America, if these people get their way, you're gonna need 'em.

 

Okay, I've had my fun for now.

[bascule]

I think part of the problem is normal reporting practices run contrary to accurate scientific reporting. In the normal inverted pyramid style, the lead is supposed to catch your attention, not make you yawn. And so they lead with "CANCER CURED", not "we managed to eliminate 10% of cancer cells in a rat's tail"

[CharonY]

What bascule said. The job for the public affair guys is, unfortunately, not necessarily accurate science reporting. That is what journals are for. I do have to add that some really try to balance it out somewhat.

[JohnB]

I wonder a bit about whether it is simply cause and effect. In times when money is tight, the higher profile Universities have a stronger case for funding. They can show more "relevence".

 

Given the large number of organizations putting out press releases, it must be a bit of a fight to get reported in the MSM. A good press officer would know this and plan his/her releases with that in mind.

 

Rather than poor reporting (although that does happen) it's a case of

"That is how the funding system works" and people are just doing what the system requires them to do to get funding.

 

That is what journals are for.

You mean like the mammoth fart article in Nature? Doesn't the fact that this paper can now claim to be "Peer reviewed and printed in the most prestigious journal on Earth" make you cringe?

 

Sorry, but it's carrying articles like that that reduce Nature from "leading journal" to "joke."

[rigney]

Don't get wrapped up in this video until you have researched it to it's fullest. But give it some thought? I love this country, but debauchery is a taboo no matter what!!

OBAMA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THIS

[JohnB]

Sorry, what?

 

I think you put this in the wrong thread.

[CharonY]

You mean like the mammoth fart article in Nature?

 

Question: have you bothered to read the article?

[JohnB]

Question: have you bothered to read the article?

 

A fair question. Unfortunately I'm not a subscriber to Nature and their asking price for 1 article is a bit steep.

 

I'm going by the quotes from the researchers at "Science Fair", to which I linked.

 

"We find that the loss of megafauna could explain 12.5% to 100% of the atmospheric decrease in methane observed at the onset of the Younger Dryas," says the study. The study authors conclude, "our calculations suggest that decreased methane emissions caused by the extinction of the New World megafauna could have played a role in the Younger Dryas cooling event."

 

Actually, the disappearance of the Megafauna is interesting and this isn't the first time it's been linked to human occupation. Against the idea is the disappearance of the Megafauna in areas that weren't inhabited by humans until some time after the extinction. The fact it occured all over the world at roughly the same time would imply a natural explanation.

 

The simple causal relationship of Humans moved in--> Megafauna died out is missing a vital and more basic point. "Why did the humans migrate?"

 

Hunter Gatherers just don't up stakes and wander around for no good reason. They are tied to a particular region because they are hunters. They know the land and they know the animals and their habits, so moving a long distance will make them less effective as hunters. Ergo there must have been compelling reasons for the migration.

 

Historically there has only been one reason for large scale migrations and that is climate change. The climate changes and the animals migrate, so the hunters have to migrate to find new prey or to find where the old ones went. Note also that climate change will effect their ability to raise or find crop foods.

 

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that rather than human migration causing the extiction of the Megafauna, both the migration and extinction were the result of a single cause. In this case, I believe it was large scale, worldwide climate change. This is not to say that the appearance of the hunters didn't have any part in the extinction, just that they not have been the primary cause.

 

You might be interested in Willis Eschenbachs take on the paper and the changes in methane levels at the time.

 

The salient point being;

Well, yeah … but the IPCC says that methane forcing varies linearly with concentration. It also says that a change in methane of 100 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) leads to a change in forcing of 0.05 Watts per square metre (W/m2). Given the methane change in the Younger Dryas of ~200 ppbv, this would result in a methane forcing change of a tenth of a watt per square metre (0.1 W/m2).

 

Now, the IPCC says that a forcing change of 3.7 W/m2 (from a doubling of CO2) would lead to a temperature change of 3°C. I think this is way too large, but we’ll let that be and use their figure. This means that the Younger Dryas change in methane forcing of 0.1 W/m2 would lead to a temperature change of 0.08°C …

(Emphasis mine)

 

Sometimes some perspective is required.

[CharonY]

I do not see how this in any way qualifies the dismissal of the paper as "Mammoth farting paper" and "joke?

 

They say that a potential drop of methane emission may be caused by the extinction of the megafauna. As you have not provided data to counter I assume I must be missing the joke somewhere.

 

Also:

Ice-core records from Greenland suggest that the methane concentration change associated with a 1 °C temperature shift ranges from 10 to 30 ppbv, with a long-term mean of about 20 ppbv (ref. 13). Thus, empirically, the 185 to 245 ppbv methane drop observed at the Younger Dryas stadial is associated with a temperature shift of 9 to 12 °C. The attribution and magnitude of the Younger Dryas temperature shift, however, remain unclear. Nevertheless, our calculations suggest that decreased methane emissions caused by the extinction of the New World megafauna could have played a role in the Younger Dryas cooling event.

 

Note that they said it could have played a role. I am sorry, but you are not making a good point by dismissing papers like that. In fact, you are playing the same game that the alarmists are doing.

(megafauna probably contributed to methane in atmosphere -> mammoth farts caused global warming wha?)

 

A weak point of the paper is indeed whether it was human interference that lead to extinction, but it was not the main point of the paper (and hence most your arguments are aimed at a tangential point at best).

[JohnB]

CharonY, I do take your point.

 

However, the use of "could" is getting very old in the Climate Change debate. Yes, it "could have contributed", however the Iceman found in a glacier years ago "could" have contributed too. Just about anything is allowed under the "could" banner. It "could" have been an Act of God.

 

It's about perspective.

 

Firstly the Americas, as we have so oft been told are only a small part of the planet, so any effect caused by the exinction of Megafauna there would be limited. Bison used to roam in the millions, where is the global drop in methane when they were pushed almost to extinction? Nowhere. So on what logical or reasonable grounds can somebody argue that a loss of American Megafauna leads to a drop in Global methane?

 

Secondly the large temp drop during the YD period is for Greenland. It is reasoned that the lower latitude temps fell far less, probably on the order of between 2 and 5 degrees C. However, using the IPCC figures, even if the researchers are correct and the extinction did have an effect, it would be in the order of .08⁰C. The world cooled by 3⁰C and they might have found the cause for .08⁰C of that drop? Wow, they may have a cause that explains 2.6% of the cooling of the YD. Earth shattering news? No. Joke? Yes.

 

Thirdly. The extinction of Megafauna both in the Americas and worldwide was over a period of some thousands of years. The drop in methane and temps were in decades. About 70 years IIRC. If Megafauna produced methane was a significant contributor to Global methane levels, then the levels should have shown a drop over a much longer period. They do not. So there isn't even good correllation between the two events.

 

Lastly. The precipitous drop of methane levels at the start of the YD event was matched by an equally sharp rise in methane levels at the end of the YD. Again we are talking mere decades here. Were the Mammoths reincarnated? Was there a sudden explosion of other ruminants? Not that we know of. So why did the methane level rise?

 

As a paper purporting to explain some to all of the Global methane decrease it fails miserably as a hypothesis because it ignores the recovery totally.

 

Something caused temps and methane levels to drop very sharply, we know that. The full blown Ice Age conditions lasted for just over 1,000 years. Then, just as suddenly as it started, the YD ended. Temps and methane levels skyrocketed. Those are the historical facts of the YD event.

 

A paper seeking to link Mammoth farts with the YD event is in direct contravention of the simple facts of the event. The Megafauna weren't wiped out worldwide in a space of 70 years, nor was there a sudden resurgence of ruminants in the 70 year period at the end of the YD event. So yes, it is a joke. It reflects very poorly on "Nature" and on the reviewers that looked at it.

[CharonY]

First of all in order not to be a hand waving alarmist it is necessary to point out elements that could pertain to a specific phenomenon (or not), instead of claiming the source of total truth. The point of science is throwing out new ideas in journals and allow for discussion.

Second, while I am not knowledgeable to discuss it in more detail it appears to me that you are arguing a different point than the authors (the journal is nature geoscience, btw). According to the paper they talk about a timeline of around 1k year for the methane, and less than that for the extinction prior to that. Also afaik it has not been established that the methane drop was the sole cause of the ice age and the authors did not make a strong claim in the direction.

 

Of course the paper is not perfect (none are), and one could argue about the numbers provided. But it appears to me that what you propose (70 year drop) is in sharp contrast to what they did (around 1000 years based on ice drills). Normally one would try to figure where that came from rather dismissing it. Though overall I do not really understand what the point of the whole discussion is. I do not see any revolutionary claim in that paper (which is interestingly one of the criticisms you provide).