Greenhouse gases causing ocean warming 19 February 05

A bunch of eco-saboteurs using meg-swimming pool heaters to warm the ocean? Not enough violence & dead bodies. You know us environmnentalists – we’re out to kill! No, we didn’t have anything to do with this one. It must actually be real, not a set-up.

I for one am not political when it comes to science. Show me the data and if it matches theory I’ll believe it even if it is not confirming my political beliefs. But the American rightwing is really so nuts that they will only admit to facts that confirm their political beliefs. Sort of like in Stalin’s Russia. Is this what America has become? Crichton I am sure has been paid well by his rightwing puppet masters to write his book. All I can say to these anti-science people is “it is on your heads that nothing is being done to confront global warming, future generations will curse you in your graves for being the agents of ignorance”! Enough said.

that it is impossible for you to believe that anyone could disagree with you unless someone paid them to disagree?

How does such an attitude comport with democratic processes?

When a scientist announces his work in the Press before publication in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL alarm bells should ring!!!

This is a technique of scoundrels who achieve their 15 minutes of fame and occaisionally hijack the very process of science derailing progress by establishing their claims as fact.

Even if this paper holds up to peer review it unlikely prove anthropomorhic Global Warming any more than the fact that I had to brake to avoid a black cat 15 minutes before my NEW CAR was rear ended proves black cats are unlucky!

How a scientist releases his findings is of no relevance, when trying to reveal such importance evidence, why would you release it to an obscure (as far as public opinion is concerned) publication?

The Greenhouse theory is proven by looking at the planet Mercury, and it worryingly even proves the run-away climate change theory.

So theory proven what about evidence? There is so much evidence of climate change that goes beyond the timescales of natural variability, that to be sceptical must surely represent a personal vested interest that is blinding the individuals objectivity.

Agreed science is not necessarily objective itself (see Pepper et al to examine that particular discussion). However it is hard to find any vested interests behind proving a GHG signal. On the other hand, to find vested interests behind disproving it, well need I elaborate?!?

You release it to the obscure publication first, because then it comes to a wider public with the benefit of peer-review and approval.

If someone leapfrogs over those obstacles by going straight to the mainstream press, then their conclusions lack that extra authority, and we are entitled to wonder why they seem to have avoided the test.

There are problems with this comfy old system when applied to a topic as factional, urgent and media-friendly as climate change, but the principle remains: until you’re in Nature, you’re still just some guy.

The authors of this study didn’t go ‘straight to the press’, they released the findings at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This is standard procedure, and the full paper will – I guess – be published in Science in due course, whereupon everyone can trawl through the 7 million temperature readings and check the statistical methodology to their heart’s content!

I didn’t say they’d gone to the press. i said ‘if they had’.

And in this case I see no reason to doubt their august reasoning. but it’s still true that I’m seeing these conclusions in the relatively uncritical mainstream press, so I don’t give them the automatic credence I would if they were in one of those more scary-looking magazines between adverts for electron microscopes.

The method chosen by a scientist for release of his findings is important. Of foremost importance is the fact that the words written are his own, not the words that reflect the understanding and biases of a reporter who probably has little if any technical competence.

Next, if he chooses to release his paper through a technical journal, his hypothesis must first pass critical review by a panel of his peers.

It next receives the scrutiny of the interested community of scientists. If his conclusions are faulty or controversial, other experts will respond with letters to the editor that point out the weaknesses in his work. It is always wise to read the letters to the editor in the next 2 or 3 editions of a journal before taking any technical conclusion too seriously.

Other researchers will then perform similar experiments in an attempt to disprove his conclusions. They will publish papers in similar journals. The debate can rage for years before science reaches any definitive conclusions.

I assume that you meant to compare the climate of Earth to the climate of Venus when you assured us that the climate of mercury proved that the runaway greenhouse gas theory is correct. Mercury does not have an atmosphere. See, http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/uc/solar_system/5/ucss5_3a.html. “Mercury has a very thin, almost undetectable atmosphere composed of sodium and potassium gas.”

Venus, on the other hand does have an atmosphere, which is 95% carbon dioxide. See, http://www.ed.psu.edu/ci/Papers/STS/gac-3/in07.htm.

Do you really believe that a comparison between the climates on a planet with an atmosphere containing 95% carbon dioxide to one with an atmosphere containing 0.000375 % carbon dioxide proves anything? By the way, the surface of Venus is about 475 degrees C; the earth’s surface is about 20 degrees C. If you do a pro rata extrapolation between the two points, you would predict that the temperature of the earth would rise about 0.03 Celsius degrees if the carbon dioxide concentration doubled to 750 parts per million.

There is considerable debate about the evidence that the current temperatures go beyond historical temperature levels. The only real technical evidence is the work of Mann et al, which is undergoing severe criticism in the technical literature now. It seems likely that Mann et al have grossly underestimated the high temperatures at the height of the Medieval Climate Optimum and the low temperatures at the depth of the Little Ice Age. It appears that their arithmetic was faulty.

All other support for carbon dioxide-induced, rapidly increasing, temperature comes from computer models. Computer models do not provide evidence.

On a more qualitative level; look at the fact that the Danes were farming in Greenland about 1,000 years ago. Look at Greenland today, is farming possible there today? How can you believe that it is warmer now than it was then?

Allow me to repeat myself. Are you so certain that your opinions are correct that it is impossible for you to believe that anyone could disagree with you unless someone paid them to disagree?

Was there a question and answer session following the presentation? Were any in the audience critical of the methods and conclusions? Did you listen to the conversation at the back of the room during the break that followed the presentation? Did some present question the results, did there appear to be legitimate questions about the accuracy?

Those are important parts of the technical exchange that occurs at meetings of scientists. The presentation of a paper at a technical meeting is similar to a trial balloon hoisted by politicians; you run it up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. Many such presentations never appear in technical journals.

We cannot know any of that because the only releases have been through popular media. Therefore, the current situation is tantamount to release through the popular media.

I know that you are tempted to jump right onto this and believe this paper uncritically, but we should try to restrain ourselves. We will know more about this a few months after its publication in a technical journal.

It sounds as though Scripps Institute of Oceanography is a heavyweight organisation that is not afraid to put their credibility behind these results (and have worked closely with the Hadley Centre http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/) :

See

http://sio.ucsd.edu/

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666

I am sure they will have to publish their results soon.

Clearly, one shouldn’t discount the possibility that Scripps has been taken over by an eco-terrorist cell and their dupes ..

The Greenhouse effect is an atmospheric phenomena.

In your post you link to the Guardian and the BBC – the Popular Press

I initially read about this via an AP article again the Popular press

When an article is Published in a Scientific Jornal it is Peer reviewed before publication and the reviewers comments included with the article.

According to Associated Press Anthropomorphic Global Warming has been ‘Proved’ by this work.

However this work has not been scrutinized by other scientists and at best this proof is just a claim. It may or may NOT stand up to scrutiny but either way this will take time.

My original point was that when Scientists go to the popular press with bold claims they undermine the established processes of Scienctific scholarship by establishing their UNTESTED claims as fact in the public mind.

Remember COLD FUSION for example.

Scientific Papers tend to be more cautious than the popular press in any case.

In a scientific paper might contain a sentence like

Analysis of the data may suggest a correlation between changes in oceanic temperatures and anthropomorphic global warming exists.

Whereas the Popular press might report

Increased Greenhouse Gasses have led to warmer oceans!

In Science skepticism is everything leave faith to religion

Athropomorphic a spell check induced malapropism

Hangs head in shame slinks off to the woodshed

to anything. It is a cop out, a result of refusal to do the analytical research necessary to make a rational decision. To think that the Precautionary Principal can do no harm is naï. One must merely look to the 30 to 50 million persons who died of, and the billion or so who have contracted malaria because of our capricious ban of DDT based on the Precautionary Principal to know that its application can cause great harm.

As Michael Crichton points out, strict application of the Precautionary Principle would ban the use of the Precautionary Principal.

Your remark “Finally it has never been suggested that the LIA or the MWP were anything to do with GHG variations. They were probably as a result of solar variability.” is right on target. Because they were most likely the result of solar activity, the IPCC models must be able to predict their occurrence if we are to take the IPCC models seriously. The models cannot predict those two climate events, so why does anyone believe them?

I discussed the Venus issue in my previous response to you. The atmosphere of Venus is 95% carbon dioxide; that is 950,000 parts per million. The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is 375 parts per million. The two situations are not comparable.

Lacking evidence, one should discount nothing.

In many ways I admire your sceptical approach. But taken too far, in too rigid a fashion, do we become unreasonable? Does it not inhibit reasonable decision-making? How can we collect sufficient evidence on all the things which have an impact on our lives?

Is it really credible that Scripps is run by eco-terrorists & their dupes?

On a slightly separate point, one area I think we should look at the evidence is to be more pro-active in searching for tests.

I am used to working with a lot of market research data, and there is a danger in finding patterns, through “data trawling” that do not really exist. Better still is to start building hypotheses, and then test them. One can then apply more sensitive stats tests (in principle, a one-tailed significance test rather than a two-tailed significance test).

Let’s say you are unconvinced with the data about atmospheric global warming. It’s always going to be tough to look at the same data and change your mind (despite, or maybe because of, the complicated stats).

So, why not look at other evidence to test the hypothesis of human-induced global warming? It is my understanding as that was the approach taken with global water temperatures, and in principle, why I think that approach is powerful. (Please accept the caveats that the data hasn’t been published etc. etc.)

Or maybe we can think of other tests?

On a more philosophical note, your response to my last blog prompted me to dig out my undergraduate book on “The problems of philosophy” by Bertrand Russell (1912) where he starts off:

“1. Appearance and Reality

Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man can doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.”

... Bertrand Russell then talks about how various statements that a “normal person” might consider true can be reasonably doubted. “By turning my head I see out of the window biuildings and clouds and the sun. I believe that the sun is about ninety-three million miles from the earth; that it is a hot globe many times bigger than the earth; that, owing to the earth’s rotation, it rises every morning, and will continue to do so for an infinite time in the future…. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a form that is wholly true.”

How true!