Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Great! Then we can revive farming in Greenland, after a 900 year hiatus.
Typical misleading article on climate that tries to scare people into thinking that we're doing something catastrophic when the evidence doesn't support that. Note the lack of actual numbers, there's no quantitative claim about the current melt rate or any explanation of the actual effect, which is minimal. Secondly they deliberately confuse land subsidence with rising sea levels in order scare people about the effects of polar melting.
Better get working on the ark the Lord has been pestering me about.
Of course, this has nothing to do with Climategate, does it?
Imagine if they were growing and extending into forests and cropland, thus shrinking the earth for all living creatures. Yea, same explanation - everything is AGW, but wouldn't that be far worse. If we could get back that verdant dinosaur climate, it would be awesome. As always, I support Jurassic Technology, especially the lower Jurassic.
Gosh, I'll bet that all those climate boffins will use telepresence for their next big shindig instead of flying a fleet of private jets to some island paradise.No?
wait....i thought it was now "Climate Change". When did we go back to "Global Warming"?
Article's headline:Study on rising sea levels likely confirms existence of global warming"likely confirms"?Where is their faith!
Obviously you people are not serious about this, whatever you call it these days.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........zzzzzzzzzz
Released just in time to coincide with the IPCC's field trip to Doha.Even if factual, attributes 11 mm of sea level rise to ice loss since 1992 or about 55 mm (~2 inches)per century. All this with no "zero reference" to work from.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/03/why-ice-loss-and-sea-level-measurements-via-satellite-and-the-new-shepard-et-al-paper-are-highly-uncertain-at-the-moment/
A newly released study finds...Studies are amazing!! They can find anything.
Can someone explain to me how the advocates explain the medieval warm period, and the warming that is supposed to have happened in Roman times, in light of the case for man-caused global warming? Is the argument that they were mere local phenomena, if they even happened, and thus meaningless? Or do AGW proponents claim those warming periods were likewise human caused?
The biggest cause of global warming is government funds for studies.
"Is the argument that they were mere local phenomena, if they even happened, and thus meaningless?"-- That's the general answer: "The Medieval Warm Period, if it exists, is just a single, out-of-place data point that is overwhelmed by current science" is the general sort of thing I'm told, but never by actual climate scientists, just people who say they read all the real scientists.
There's no evidence at all for AGW and no scientific theory at all that predicts it.There's lots of grants and political interest groups, which gives a good sociological theory for AGW.
"Studies are amazing!! They can find anything."Can they find my keys?
I can't tell the players without a program...Just a few months ago, I was reading that Antarctic glaciers have been growing while Arctic sea-ice (and Greenland glaciers) have been shrinking.Somewhere in the article, it hints that Antarctic ice may be growing, not shrinking. But the words used are confusing.I note that there isn't a reference to which study produces predictions that can be tested.
Can someone explain to me how the advocates explain the medieval warm period, and the warming that is supposed to have happened in Roman times, in light of the case for man-caused global warming? Better yet, what happened to the glacier that coveted Wisconsin and a good chunk of Indiana and Illinois?Personally I'm more concerned with the aftermath of a superquake, Carrington Event or a asteroid impact than I am over melting ice caps over a couple hundred year period.
Indeed.As if we now need a "scientific reason" to impoverish ourselves.We're doing that quite well without any science whatsoever.Innumeracy, fanciful notions of "green collar jobs" (quick - send a resume to Solyndra - I heard they're hiring!) and the untold bounties unleashed by Socialism are doing the job quite well, thank you very much.But hey, if turning off the heater, paying $6 a gallon or more for gas, and a new, "natural rate of unemployment" at 10%+, and half the population on food-stamps validates a vote for idiot liberal Democrats, one is free to make that choice.Forward!
drozz said...wait....i thought it was now "Climate Change". When did we go back to "Global Warming"?When even the "low information" voters that went for Zero wised up they were the same thing.
Ho hum. More fictional results from computer models asserting mythical feedback loops and start with inserted faked data. That is is all they have.Until the UN guys finish taking over the internet and can censor truth tellers, they are just spinning their wheels with their Goebbels Big Lie technique.
Evidence, facts, who needs those even if, "Shepherd estimates that the data compiled in the new study is two to three times more reliable than previous studies on melting ice and rising sea-level."
Even if global warming is true, and even if man made global warming is happening it doesn't suggest that the solutions advocated for dealing with the problem will work or have any chance of being implemented. Scientists are not economists.
"...the new study is two to three times more reliable than previous studies..."So now zero times (two or three) is no longer zero?Good God, man!This new math is fun.
"Shepherd estimates that the data compiled in the new study is two to three times more reliable than previous studies on melting ice and rising sea-level."-- That's great; I notice that it is only with climate change that we aren't expected to have scientists go through arduous peer review, years of validation and the like. Someone just saying: "Hey, this is super reliable" is enough. Because, science!
Does this mean the science isn't settled any more?
Somewhere over the last year or two, there was a bit of a stir over observations that the Antarctic ice sheet was actually expanding and growing thicker. Some of the AGW folks were adamant that the best models predicted that global warming would cause the Antarctic sheet to increase in size, while the Arctic ice sheet would shrink in size. One might wonder about how the Antarctic sheet is both increasing in size and disappearing three times faster than it was two decades ago.(Actually, I don't wonder that much. I work in the life sciences, and I routinely notice how wildly news articles overstate whatever an actual study concludes, which helps to explain why so many studies seem to contradict each other. When the actual studies are read, there is often no contradiction, but important subtleties are left out of the popular reporting, which makes it look like scientists have no clue what they are doing.)
"I work in the life sciences, and I routinely notice how wildly news articles overstate whatever an actual study concludes"And I've read (and in some cases reviewed) peer-reviewed research wherein the authors overstate the conclusions. A depressing amount of published research makes claims beyond what their data support, and sloppy thinking by the reviewers lets it through. But I'm kind of a hardass about that. Maybe I should lighten up. They mean well...
"Green"land is back, at long last!
A retired NASA scientist I know used the following scientific description, "It's all bull**it". The catastrophic rise in water level is nearly as catastrophic when you realize it will gradual and over a very long period of time. It's not like one day you are having a cup of coffee on your Malibu Beach patio and then next day you drown. I'm thinking that people could actually move further inland before they die from the worst case 4" rise in water level. The biggest problem with climate change is that no one can accurately predict the consequences of this climate change. It is mere speculation, exaggerated to catastrophic levels. Yet, no one will exaggerate the economic impact of limiting greenhouse gas emissions done rapidly today.
The missing piece, and I may have missed it myself in the article but I don't think so, is how fast was the ice melting two decades ago. If it was really super duper fast then then perhaps we are going to drown shortly. On the other hand maybe it was melting really slowly so three times faster than really slow might not be so fast at all. Imperative to remember that more than two pieces of data are needed to reach a conclusion.
roesch/voltaire said...Evidence, facts, who needs those even if, "Shepherd estimates that the data compiled in the new study is two to three times more reliable than previous studies on melting ice and rising sea-level."There is no question the ice is melting.The contention is the cause.The sun is my best guess.Yours?
In the range of things I care about, "climate change" or "Global Warming" are not even on my list of concerns--the planet's climate has been changing for its 4.6 billion years of existence. What else is new. I simply do not give a damn about this crisis d'jour.
In 20 years, it may have changed. What about Antarctica?
Upon further review...
Rusty said: There is no question the ice is melting.The contention is the cause.The sun is my best guess.Yours?Actually, I think the "melting" issue is in question; see Biff's point about reports of increased Antarctic ice recently.Since this "study" is actually just a meta-analysis of old "data" (most of which appears to be more modeling than actual measurement), I'm not sure we can assume that there's any net ice loss at all.(But, agreed, if there is any we also can't assume it's caused by Icky Carbon Emissions.)
Anthony Watts has a word for this type of sensational climate reporting. can't think of it at present
Science is America's flagship publication and I've followed it off and on for around 30 years or so. Editorially, they are aghast at and unsympathetic toward AGW heresy. The hard science AGW challenges always seem to break in Britain's equavalent Nature or elsewhere down the publication pecking order.If you pick up any given issue of Science, you will always find cutting edge results but also endless pleas for ever increasing amounts of Federal subsidy. There is rarely a positive editorial note about industrial science--the true "wealth-spring" of prosperity in America.
Is the concern global warming or anthropogenic stimulants?This is the latest evidence to support the existence of natural cycles. There is a reason why the Earth's system is represented with a chaotic model.In any case, "global" warming is a meaningless metric. There are local and regional effects which are continuously redistributed throughout the system.
"It's not real.""I don't care."Progress!
I'm not a big climate change worrier. If people have to move in from the coasts a little bit over the next 100 years, so be it.But isn't some of the problem with these measurements, etc. that the equipment changes over time. Maybe they can measure the polar ice caps better nowadays. So to claim that it's eroding faster than before, you'd have to say that the measurements from the past are as accurate as those today. So why, then, use different equipment to measure. Why use different types of thermometers than 50 years ago? I would think that the technology to measure stuff improves over time. If that's the case, maybe our measurements in the past were not good. Of course, they could have been off in the wrong direction, making the problem much worse than we might know. Or it could have been that the polar ice cap wasn't as deep as we thought based on our outdated equipment. Regardless, the governments of this world cannot even have balanced budgets. To expect them to solve a problem like climate change/global warming is laughable.
I love how the last quote of the article is from some guy at Penn State who was not involved with the study. Then why quote him? If you connect the dots then Duhn-duh-DUUHNN you realize Penn State is the home of Hockey Stick Michael Mann. Sure; he has no personal or professional interest in advancing global warming alarmism...but since he's damaged goods from the failed Hockey Stick Data and ClimateGate emails, he trots out a colleague to buck up the bona fides of the findings.
When a leftist says "climate change" what they really mean is abrupt, catastrophic human-induced climate change. Because the climate has always changed.
Garage - let's say for a moment that AGW is very real and scary. What do you propose to do about China & India CO2 emissions?
But Global Warming stopped almost 20 years ago. Quote: "From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat."How can a proxy (Glacier mass) show warming when the direct temperature measurements don't?
This study should make you wonder two things: How fast was ice melting two decades ago. And why have things changed.@Borepatch, similarly, daily temperatures here in San Francisco only go up. It was 51 at 8 AM and now it's almost 60!
Nice article, except that it's not true.1. We're in a 16-year cooling trend (that follows a 16-year warming trend that followed a 30 year cooling trend).2. The melting deals with a summer top surface melt that isn't out of the normal range.3. Recent estimates of sea-level rise have been shown to be wrong by an order of magnitude.4. Hurricane Sandy wasn't even a big hurricane, but the direction was perfect for maximum damage.5. We've overbuilt by the ocean subsidized by federal insurance - no rational insurer would insure most of these places.6. Even if the worst predictions are correct, what effect will the prescriptions the climate warmists actually do? Sure, we could spend trillions upon trillions of dollars, but what guarantee do these folks offer that it will make any difference?7. More people die due to cold than hot weather.
bpm4532, my point is that this study relied on proxy measurements that are directly contradicted by instrument measurements. It's precisely this sort of nonsense that make a lot of people suspect that Global Warming is junk science.Quite frankly, the correct conclusion to draw from the study is that glacial mass is a poor proxy for temperature.
Sorry, don't care whether it's true or not. We cannot trust anything "climatologists" say about anything since they are proven liars. If it was true, and if it means anything is just too damn bad. But it's not true and doesn't mean anything.
"It's not real.""I don't care."Progress!No, just speaking truth to power. The "study" omits that there is no accurate baseline for interpreting the data, because of known errors in the very data they used for the study. IOW, the study isn't accurate because of the GiGo effect.Woops!
Judging by the way this important study has hit the media, it is absolutely critical to the survival of our civilization that the world is informed of its findings.For a mere 20 dollars, you can view the study for 24 hours at the journal Science's website. Otherwise, you'll need an annual subscription.
And tell us, two decades ago just how fast were the 'disappearing'?And if they are doing this disappearing act, why hasn't the sea rose in height?Sounds like some more BS studies ment to get the U.N. and Obama to push some 'global warming' laws.Nah... scientist don't play politics, right?
Great! Then we can revive farming in Greenland, after a 900 year hiatus.Such a stupid comment he felt compelled to post it twice.
Can someone explain to me how the advocates explain the medieval warm period, and the warming that is supposed to have happened in Roman times, in light of the case for man-caused global warming? Is the argument that they were mere local phenomena, if they even happened, and thus meaningless? Or do AGW proponents claim those warming periods were likewise human caused?Ignorance is not an excuse. Read and learn.
the planet's climate has been changing for its 4.6 billion years of existence. What else is new.This is not even a marginally sensible argument. For example, the rate of change is a crucial consideration if you are comparing this period of climate change with other periods. The important things to consider here are the economic and human costs associated with all of the options. However, I feel compelled to mention for the benefit of the Althouse lemmings that putting your heads in the sand is not a sensible option.
Jake Diamond shows more two facets of dazzling ad hominem deflection rather than bothering to engage.
Jake is adamant that he, and only he, has all the answers. Does he remind anyone else of someone else?
Jake: I came, I saw, I read. Climate Scientists know F_ck-All about the Roman and Medieval periods of great weather, nor the cause of the horrific Little Ice Age that we have recently come out from.No doubt that CO2 has caused some warming and more is coming down the road that cannot be stopped. No doubt that glaciers have melted from CO2 and carbon black soot. Sea level continues it's stately rise 3/4-foot per century with a slight CO2 bump on top of it. Whatever happens is going to come, no matter how many CFL bulbs and Pius cars you buy. We could go zero carbon today and not change the melt impact for the next 30-years. The focus should be on adaptation and long-term decarbonization through robust economic investment in industrial and municipal scale technology. Also, fracked gas is a perfect low toxicity bridge fuel for power and transport. Not the current proposals to heavily tax energy to fund inappropriate and immature techno-fixes.
Jake is adamant that he, and only he, has all the answers.To my friend, the capon-I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm sure that all of the wingnut answers are stupid and wrong.Now cluck off, birdbrain.
By and large, the "right wing echo chamber" voices here are voices of doubt and skepticism. By and large, the leftwing voices are voices of certainty and frustrated will.
Adamant Jake and his ilk are frustrated because they offer no prescription to actually solve anything--offering only punitive measures and heavy doses of guilt--I suspect this is why even reasonable people liken them to a religious cult.
Ok, they were right all along. The experts say so.
offering only punitive measures and heavy doses of guiltSo when I tell the Althouse lemmings how stupid their comments are, they feel guilty?Don't try so hard, birdbrain. "Rebuttal" doesn't mean "pull something out of your ass." If you can't respond without making up shit, then keep your beak shut.
reasonable people liken them to a religious cult.Bwahahahahahaha! Chicky is mocking religion! Mittens will not be pleased when he learns you are saying unkind things about his Mormon cult. Bigot!
By and large, the "right wing echo chamber" voices here are voices of doubt and skepticism. The dumbcluck proves once again that he is full of shit.
Jake, people are making arguments and offering explanations. All you have to do is the same from your point of view, but instead you waste a series of comments to do nothing but attack the people themselves. Are you capable of arguing your side or not, because so far you aren't coming off as someone who's opinion we should care about.I'd like to see an explanation of why this conclusion should be accepted as valid despite the fact that the JPL data it's based on has already been called junk, by JPL's own scientists. Also, much of the other data in this study does not support the conclusions Sheppard comes too, and some directly refutes it.http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/new-ice-surveys-finds-slower-ice-sheet-melting
Sigivald said...Rusty said: There is no question the ice is melting.The contention is the cause.The sun is my best guess.Yours?Actually, I think the "melting" issue is in question; see Biff's point about reports of increased Antarctic ice recently.Since this "study" is actually just a meta-analysis of old "data" (most of which appears to be more modeling than actual measurement), I'm not sure we can assume that there's any net ice loss at all.(But, agreed, if there is any we also can't assume it's caused by Icky Carbon Emission.I forget where I read it, but all ice melt-water rise data is suspect because there is no base datum point that the satellites can measure from. The most accurate instrument to measure is a laser and it's data sets are flat. Showing no increase. A whole new set of satellites needs to be launched and datum established. Then accurate measurements can be made.
Hey Baggy! Thanks for the link to the blog of two computer scientists. I'm sure they know a lot more about climate science than, say, scientists who actually study climate science. One of the most amusing things about you nutwingers is how carefully you filter and select your information sources. Remember how you screamed about the superiority of Rasmussen polling and how unreliable Nate Silver's forecast was? How did that work out for you? And now you happily bypass relevant primary scientific sources and embrace science denial blog posts. Will you ever learn? /rhetoricalOh, and just in case you think I forgot about your invitation to waste my time trying to educate you about basic climate science, I want you to know that I'm here for amusement purposes only. If it ain't fun, then I'm done. Got it?
Jake Diamond said...offering only punitive measures and heavy doses of guiltSo when I tell the Althouse lemmings how stupid their comments are, they feel guilty?Don't try so hard, birdbrain. "Rebuttal" doesn't mean "pull something out of your ass." If you can't respond without making up shit, then keep your beak shut.Oh. The irony.
Careful everyone. You're going up against a real Pericles here.
The utter infallibility of Nate Silver is one of the oddest dogmas to emerge from left from the 2012 election. I haven't fathomed exactly why the left wishes to put the man on a pedestal and to "dethrone" Rasmussen, but I have my hunches.
@Ritmo: Has Nate Silver put any odds on degrees of warming in the future?
Dear God. We are all doomed. Why the ending of the last Ice Age is coming. Whatever shall we do?
Also, this is probably the best thing that could happen to greenland. Or as me and my friends call it. Gronland!!
The Science research article's Abstract:“We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year^−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”(Emphasis added.) Thus, ignoring the plus-minus uncertainty, the two decadal (1992-2011) rate of glacial melt across Greenland and Antarctica (incorporating 99% of all the world's glacial ice) adds up to a total of –213 gigatons (10^9 metric tons) of ice gain (i.e. loss) per year. Sounds like a very big number, doesn't it?Let's do something that these big AGW research articles never seem to find at all interesting: express the finding in terms of how long it will take at that instantaneous rate of speed to melt all of Greenland's and Antarctica's ice. Granted the melt rate appears to be increasing, yet even so, considering the time scale ought to tell us something interesting about the scope of the problem.To arrive at this figure, one must compare the measured melt rate with the amount of glacial and ice-cap ice present in Greenland and Antarctica. Referring to the Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1386-B) for this information, we learn (see page 6, pdf) that:3.01 x 10^7 km^3 Antarctica's total ice volume2.60 x 10^6 km^3 Greenland's principal “Inland Ice”2.00 x 10^4 km^3 Greenland's peripheral glacial iceThe total glacial and ice-cap ice between these two continental domains is therefore 3.30 x 10^7 km^3 (33,000,000 cubic kilometers).So how long would that ice last?3.30 x 10^7 km^3 (total ice volume in cubic km)= 3.30 x 10^22 cm^3 (in cubic cm)= 3.0 x 10^22 g (total ice weight in grams)= 3.0 x 10^16 t (in metric tons)= 3.0 x 10^7 Gt (in gigatons)There are thus some 30 million gigatons of glacial ice in Greenland and Antarctica. You know, that's an even much larger number.Dividing by 213 gigatons of glacial ice loss per year at present (1992-2011) rates, we get:= 140,845 yearsMore than 140 thousand years before Greenland's and Antarctica's (99% of all the world's) glaciers and ice caps melt in their entirety.That's more than ten times longer than the interglacial climatic period that has prevailed since the end of the last ice age. It's longer, indeed, than the entirety of the foregoing ice age itself, ever since the last preceding interglacial epoch.Even if the rate of melting does dramatically speed up over future decades, does it sound like all that ice is going to disappear anytime soon?
Since this “study” is actually just a meta-analysis of old “data” (most of which appears to be more modeling than actual measurement), I'm not sure we can assume that there's any net ice loss at all.Actually, for the first time on this topic science is moving more toward actual measurement than just modeling in this regard — inasmuch as the present study incorporates the results of the GRACE satellite's direct Earth measurements that came out earlier this year. See this Nature report on that.
Does this mean I can get a deal on Al Gore's beachfront mansion?
If you have to resort to restating the fact that Obama won an election a month ago for the hundredth time, then I have to assume you don't get the opportunity to be right very often, and it's very hard to let go of that once it happened to you. You only had a 50/50 chance and you nailed it. Good for you. Now can we move on? It's like listening to AL Bundy brag about that one high school football game.
I like Bjorn Lomborg's approach--There are many problems in this world worse than global warming. It's like worrying about pollen allergies when the patient has high blood pressure, pancreatitis and a broken leg.Even if AGW were as as bad as guys like Michael Mann say, the money spent to fix the problem could be better spent to fix numerous other problems.
What a way to spin the data! If there is anything new in this study, it is a significant reduction in the estimates for the melt rates of 20 years ago. The older reported estimates for those periods were said to contribute over 1mm/year to global sea levels. Now it's said that the present rates, which are still supposed to be less than 1mm/year, are 3 to 5 times higher than the old rates. And somehow this is sold as being "worse than we thought!"
Evidence, facts, who needs those even if, "Shepherd estimates that the data compiled in the new study is two to three times more reliable than previous studies on melting ice and rising sea-level."The basic problem all along has been GIGO - Garbage In/Garbage Out. The previously linked Watts Up With That? article (Why ice loss and sea level measurements via satellite and the new Shepherd et al paper are highly uncertain at the moment) pointed out that at the same time that this article is being trumpeted as being oh so much more accurate, NASA is trying to actually get a handle on the accuracy of its sea level and ice measurements (Finally: JPL intends to get a GRASP on accurate sea level and ice measurements). Apparently, the meta-study being so highly hyped here is based on models and data so dodgy that NASA admitted almost two months ago that it needs a new satellite program (GRASP) just to finally quantify the error terms and set a baseline for their sea level and ice measurement data. Yet, somehow a meta-study (meaning that various studies and models have been somehow combined) using this dodgy data results in 3x the accuracy of the studies previously using the same questionable data.
This study should make you wonder two things: How fast was ice melting two decades ago. And why have things changed.Or, has it?
The important things to consider here are the economic and human costs associated with all of the options. Actually, Jake says something of value here. The thing that is almost never discussed here are the cost/benefits of the various alternatives. And that, I would argue, would put an end to most of the various schemes to reduce CO2 emissions (even assuming that CO2 increases could cause AGW), since the one thing rarely considered is the interplay between time and remediation. By the time that any rise in sea level could cause much in the way of encroachment, the useful lives of the buildings involved would likely be long expired. And, significant AGW would likely open up vast stretches of Canada, Russia (esp. Siberia), and Alaska to farming. Happening anyway, with our coming out of the Little Ice Age, but if we warmed even faster, might it not be for the better? Sure, crops and people would have to migrate a little, but BFD. Been happening for tens of thousands of years, and now we have the Internet and motorized vehicles to aid in the migration.
Thanks for the link to the blog of two computer scientists. I'm sure they know a lot more about climate science than, say, scientists who actually study climate science.This is called credentialism. You are only supposed to listen to people with the proper credentials. But, in this case, what are they, and who set them? The funny thing is that the primary credential for being a climitologist is adherence to AGW orthodoxy.But, one of the things that we learned with ClimateGate was how weak the top "climitologists" were when they got out of their narrow specialties. They were horrid in computer science, and apparently not much better in statistics. Mann's Hockey Stick was discredited when finally analyzed by a real statistician. The same Hockey Stick that made it into the IPCC studies used by our EPA to presumably limit CO2 production during Obama's second term. Should we be surprised? Both statistics and computer science are required at a rudimentary level in most science PhD programs. But, we really can't expect an expert in, say, tree ring analysis, to be also be an expert in computer science and statistics. Or, even, probably, the physics of CO2. They have their own experts, and their own PhDs, and in a perfect world, research teams would include experts in all these areas. Some times, and it seems more and more these days, the "non-expert" is able to see the big picture much better than the "expert", esp. when the analysis being discussed laps into the "non-experts" expertise. As somewhat of an example, we are wrapping up a comment period for comments on proposed federal regulations. They are substantially legal, and most of the groups commenting are lawyers. But, our group has provided, by far I think, the most substantive comments, and much of the work was done by a PhD in Electrical Engineering. He was able to come at the regulations, and the supposed rationales and studies underlying them, from a different, more systematic point of view, and was able to see the forest through the trees, as most of the attorneys commenting on these regulations could not. My point then is that credentialism is really a defense of mediocrity and maybe even ineptitude. If the work were really that defendable, it would be defendable from attacks from those in other disciplines as well, and, maybe even more decisively. The work stands on its own two feet, regardless of who did it, and who is attacking it. Or, it doesn't.
This is called credentialism. You are only supposed to listen to people with the proper credentials.Hey Brucie! Good luck when you hire a plumber for your bypass surgery!
Because the relationship of computer science to climatology is just like that of plumbing to surgery. You know, Pericles, I generally do my own plumbing and electrical work.And I sure as hell wouldn't trust a bypass surgeon whose experience consisted of computer modeling of bypass surgeries to determine how to proceed.
The thing that is almost never discussed here are the cost/benefits of the various alternatives. And that, I would argue, would put an end to most of the various schemes to reduce CO2 emissionsObviously Brucie hasn't read the Stern review, or for that matter, any of the hundreds of studies that contradict his opinion.(even assuming that CO2 increases could cause AGWAlthouse--where science denial never rests.
And I sure as hell wouldn't trust a bypass surgeon whose experience consisted of computer modeling of bypass surgeries to determine how to proceed.Althouse readers continue to show their ignorance of science. In this case Crimso clings to the belief that the only reasonable way to project FUTURE climate trends is to build a time machine, travel to the future and take measurements. Gee, why didn't any of those climate scientists think of that?Yes indeed, Crimso, what do those crazy climate scientists think they're doing using computers for complex calculations and using models to predict future trends? Don't they know that computers are just for games and blogging?
"Althouse readers continue to show their ignorance of science."Every person who knows me (including those who hate my guts)would laugh at the utter stupidity of that claim. I am a failure at nearly everything in life. Science is one thing I will confidently assert a large measure of authority in. I've seen good science, and I've seen bad science. Overall, the former is the exception rather than the rule. And yes, I've contributed to both categories. And I'm honest enough with myself to admit it. Are the likes of Michael Mann or James Hansen? Or (dare I ask?) you?
Well, Crimso, I can either believe your self-serving self-reference or I can draw my own conclusions based on what you've written here. Unfortunately what you've written leads me to conclude that you don't know a damn thing about climate science. Until you tell me how climate scientists can predict future climate trends without using models, it will be difficult for me to see you as anything but a science denial nincompoop. Thanks though for stopping by to toot your own horn.
"Until you tell me how climate scientists can predict future climate trends without using models"They can't do it without using models, and I never said they could (nor do I understand exactly how you arrived at that conclusion). The thing is, they can't do it WITH models either. At least not so far. I conclude they greatly overstate their understanding of the factors involved in long-term climate trends. I freely admit that this is my opinion, and not a fact. But since you have declared me to have no credibility with respect to climate science, before I accept any of your opinions on it, you'll need to convince me that you know anything about it."Toot my own horn?" Oh, indeed. It would be like Althouse claiming to have any knowledge of the law. The absurdity.
I freely admit that this is my opinion, and not a fact.Ok. I don't have any interest in opinions that aren't grounded in facts. Thanks for sharing anyway.
You go Jake Diamond!
Post a Comment