2015 Warmest Year on Record

[ClydeBrick]

I have really enjoyed reading the threads on climate change - however, I am not going to engage anyone on the climate change subject. My interest goes beyond just the AGW debate, I am interested in @AE 87 's points about how people relate to the science (which has broader implications beyond the AGW debate).

As an addendum to 87's points, here is a link - to an opinion piece in a decidedly non-scientific source - that alleges even a different type of problem with "Big Science". In it, the allegation against Big Science is not one of "faith" but of human nature and the problems that come from revering the 'establishment'. Interestingly, the AGW debate is not even mentioned.

This gets into the question of the sociology of science. It's a familiar bromide that "science advances one funeral at a time." The greatest scientific pioneers were mavericks and weirdos. Most valuable scientific work is done by youngsters. Older scientists are more likely to be invested, both emotionally and from a career and prestige perspective, in the regnant paradigm, even though the spirit of science is the challenge of regnant paradigms.

Why, then, is our scientific process so structured as to reward the old and the prestigious? Government funding bodies and peer review bodies are inevitably staffed by the most hallowed (read: out of touch) practitioners in the field. The tenure process ensures that in order to further their careers, the youngest scientists in a given department must kowtow to their elders' theories or run a significant professional risk. Peer review isn't any good at keeping flawed studies out of major papers, but it can be deadly efficient at silencing heretical views.

All of this suggests that the current system isn't just showing cracks, but is actually broken, and in need of major reform. There is very good reason to believe that much scientific research published today is false, there is no good way to sort the wheat from the chaff, and, most importantly, that the way the system is designed ensures that this will continue being the case.

 

[TennesseeJacket]

It's going to be a hot,dry Summer here in SE Tennessee. It's already in the mid 80s which is a bad sign in my opinion

 

[AE 87]

I have really enjoyed reading the threads on climate change - however, I am not going to engage anyone on the climate change subject. My interest goes beyond just the AGW debate, I am interested in @AE 87 's points about how people relate to the science (which has broader implications beyond the AGW debate).

As an addendum to 87's points, here is a link - to an opinion piece in a decidedly non-scientific source - that alleges even a different type of problem with "Big Science". In it, the allegation against Big Science is not one of "faith" but of human nature and the problems that come from revering the 'establishment'. Interestingly, the AGW debate is not even mentioned.

Thanks for the link.

Just for a bit of clarity on my position. I accept Thomas Kuhn's interpretation of development within science as initially explained in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and clarified in subsequent essays.

Kuhn identified "normal science" as the situation in which scientists within a community operate within a paradigm or the constraints of a scientific theory. The paradigm or theory establishes the givens of the discipline which are, at best, confirmed by observations. After a paradigm is established, encountering observations that don't fit does not automatically overturn the paradigm but simply raises questions to be addressed and investigated. He described the abandonment of one paradigm for another as a revolution because it requires looking at the world in a completely different way.

When I spoke of faith, I was referring to the disposition of those outside the scientific community who accept the community's conclusions without understanding the paradigm and the degree to which the evidence is confirming or dis-confirming.

Anyway, I agree that this new topic is interesting (and probably deserved a different thread).

 

[JacketFromUGA]

http://xkcd.com/1732/

 

[AE 87]

LOL

 

[MWBATL]

Ahhh, we need the global warming to protect us all from the coming Ice Age anyways...relax......

 

[jacket71]

We already have a consensus. It's about 97% of the scientific community that agrees.

That's more than the percentage of dentists who recommend crest.

Actually, the 97% number is a misnomer. The percentage comes from the respondents to a Uof Chicago grad students survey that was sent to hundreds or thousands of scientists...forgot the actual number...but was responded by <50 and 97% of them agreed. This number has been ballyhooed as gospel but is in actuality non-scientific and a non-starter to the facts. With the proliferation of government backed studies since Gore, the grants are going to those scientists that support the Global Warming line..or is it now Climate Change.

I have been involved in this arena for several years and the private, non-grant supported data tells a different story.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I have been involved in this arena for several years and the private, non-grant supported data tells a different story.

I would be curious about that for one reason. The biggest opponents of global warming data, from my understanding, have been those in the fossil fuel industry. Yet, in spite of their generally consistent public position (and dark money to certain political candidates and causes) leaks of internal documents and reports from former CEOs have indicated that their private research on the topic pretty much mirrored government research.

This is just one of many examples I have run across over the years from Fortune Magazine:

http://fortune.com/2015/06/05/shell-climate-change/

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Lol.....so individuals, within "big oil", that expressed an open mindedness toward AGW.....prove that AGW is fact and also a cover up by big oil? That's pretty rich.

IMO, some of that declared open mindedness was an attempt at political correctness.....some of it was big oil vs coal fire production. Do the big company conspiracy theorists doubt big oil might try and take economic advantage over stricter coal regulation?

None of this supports AGW as a scientific theory.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

IMO, some of that declared open mindedness was an attempt at political correctness.....

Very puzzling statement given that the politically correct position for the fossil fuel industry is to downplay global warming. I can think of no other more politically correct statement than the one perpetuated by them for decades.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Those 97 comments cited were not widespread from energy producers. Few though they were, I think they were an attempt to show that they cared about environment in face of large public perception they did not. More clear?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Those 97 comments cited were not widespread from energy producers. Few though they were, I think they were an attempt to show that they cared about environment in face of large public perception they did not. More clear?

Yeah, I just don't buy it. Sorry. They have been doing advertising for years to explain how they care about the environment, all while denying global warming.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Oh I don't expect you to buy what they are selling

On the other hand....I care about the environment....but don't believe AGW alarmism.....I also want cheap relatively clean energy....which I think we have for the most part currently. And I don't want to see that regulated away needlessly.

 

[AE 87]

When NASA keeps making the past colder (comparing 1999 to 2016) and is making the present warmer than satellite records, it's hard for me to take them seriously.

In 2012, the IPCC reported a 10 year hiatus:

However, if you look at NASA's 2016 data, that hiatus is gone.

smdh

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Actually it was in 2015 that the hiatus was poked at. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...atus_new_research_shows_it_doesn_t_exist.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...aa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/

The ‘hiatus’ is no more?

Part of the problem here is simply semantic. What do people even mean by a ‘hiatus’, ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’? As discussed above, if by ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ people mean a change to the long-term trends, then the evidence for this has always been weak (see also this comment by Mike). If people use ‘slowdown’ to simply point to a short-term linear trend that is lower than the long-term trend, then this is still there in the early part of the last decade and is likely related to an interdecadal period (through at least 2012) of more La Niña-like conditions and stronger trade winds in the Pacific, with greater burial of heat beneath the ocean surface.

So while not as dead as the proverbial parrot, the search for dramatic explanations of some anomalous lack of warming is mostly over. As is common in science, anomalies (departures from expectations) are interesting and motivating. Once identified, they lead to a reexamination of all the elements. In this case, there has been an identification of a host of small issues (and, in truth, there are always small issues in any complex field) that have involved the fidelity of the observations (the spatial coverage, the corrections for known biases), the fidelity of the models (issues with the forcings, examinations of the variability in ocean vertical transports etc.), and the coherence of the model-data comparisons. Dealing with those varied but small issues, has basically lead to the evaporation of the original anomaly. This happens often in science – most anomalies don’t lead to a radical overhaul of the dominant paradigms. Thus I predict that while contrarians will continue to bleat about this topic, scientific effort on this will slow because what remains to be explained is basically now well within the bounds of what might be expected.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There have been 4 different peer reviewed scientific studies this year which all independently concluded there has been no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming. We are in our ELEVENTH year since a Cat-3 hurricane or larger has hit the US - the longest streak in history (by far). There are more areas on earth without reliable (or any) temperature readings than there are with them. Many areas that do have temperature readings have had their measurements compromised over time because of where those now live (more and more cement cities and so on). The environmental lobby missed a great opportunity years ago by attacking this from a pollution angle and a 'and if it helps reduce impact on overall climate its a bonus'. Instead, they have gone at this from a political angle and its backfired to the point nobody trusts scientists anymore. Really, when someone gets money from pro-environment organizations and governments, knows what results are necessary to keep the money coming, and so on, that violates a bunch of different basic scientific tenants.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

to the point nobody trusts scientists anymore.

This is not new. Social scientists have long documented that Americans are rather unique among industrialized nations in the degree to which average citizens do not trust scientists. I personally think the advent of the internet has made this even worse by giving a false equivalency to all theories regardless of standing in the scientific community.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Lol. Fool me once ( next ice age coming) shame on you. Fool me twice (AGW), shame on me.

So Americans have less trust in scientists than other nationalities?......maybe Anericans aren't as dumb, comparatively, as I thought.

 

[AE 87]

The point I was trying to make was apparently not obvious. In 2012, the IPCC which has largely been the voice in favor of AGW, spoke of a 10 year period with no significant warming. Now, we have NASA publishing data that shows significant warming over that period and hiding the fact that this warming is not reflected in the satellite data.

When I read Orwell's 1984 as a teenager I scoffed at the idea that people could watch government change the facts of history and put up with it. On this forum, I've encountered people who not only put up with it but believe it every time it's changed. Four years ago, "it is just a pause, a hiatus, nothing to worry about, the science is strong." Now: "the pause never happened." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain or the satellites in orbit.

 

[AE 87]

Well, climate change folk may have just lost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/meet-trumps-pick-to-disma_b_12832350.html