tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post8348590167467065507..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Should climate scientists engage in advocacy?James Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-13683965867450388052013-08-09T04:48:59.267+01:002013-08-09T04:48:59.267+01:00I actually do have some more new information from ...I actually do have some more new information from the literature from the June International Fluids and Structural Dynamics conference held in Bristol, that might not bore Benson and our estimable hosts. There was a paper there on "Overview and Lessons Learned From the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop" by 10 authors.<br /><br />For those who think that colorful pictures of complex flows, such as GCM's produce, are evidence of quantitative skill may find this disturbing.<br /><br />Basically, NASA organized a workshop to solicit fluid dynamics simulations of some very simple test cases involving steady and unsteady high Reynolds' number flows. RANS is Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes, the same model used in GCM's essentially.<br /><br />"The scatter among [workshop] results is large where viscous effects are significant. In cases where separated flow or geometrically-thickened bounder layers are indicated by the experimental data, these methods [RANS] appear to qualitatively mis-predict even the steady pressure distributions. This is thought to be due to the time-averaging introduced through the turbulence models employed in the RANS and URANS solvers. Even in a time accurate simulation, if the time step is not small enough, vorticity and separation features are smeared, and reattachment is missed." Paul Williams already knows this of course.<br /><br />"Paying attention to convergence of dynamical quantities with respect to time step size is recommended."<br /><br />They also point out that in flutter calculations, a key to producing a stable airframe, linear potential flow is used adjusted with test data. To use Navier-Stokes would result in a cycle time of roughly 500 years, clearly not practical. <br /><br />With regard to buffet, a bounded chaotic unsteady flow condition, that is quite annoying to pilots and passengers, they state "The ability to reliably predict buffet cannot be understated, as the current practice is to make a conservative assumption, followed by a validation of the assumptions' conservatism in flight test."<br /><br />Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers or hear from model developers.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-86736217903473332792013-08-08T15:33:19.874+01:002013-08-08T15:33:19.874+01:00James, No, I'm saying that the current activi...James, No, I'm saying that the current activist stance of a lot of climate scientists is not working, so rational people would ask why. Maybe the answer is indeed what Tamsin points to. i believe that undue activism actually has a counterproductive effect. It makes you feel good and virtuous but doesn't make others respect your scientific opinions.<br /><br />But, hey, most of what can be said has been already said earlier. :-) David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-68746851625354374892013-08-08T06:14:23.555+01:002013-08-08T06:14:23.555+01:00David Y,
I thought you were arguing that it was n...David Y,<br /><br />I thought you were arguing that it was not the business of climate scientists to talk about this stuff?<br /><br />David B,<br /><br />Usually I would say that the bored person is under no compulsion to read, but in this case I actually agree with you (hopefully there will be a more interesting blog post coming along shortly).<br /><br />In the meantime, I propose that all those who support Tamsin's argument, also adopt her proposal and only comment on topics where they are an acknowledged expert (say 3 relevant published papers, to formalise the "Tol Rule").<br /><br />The rest of us can carry on as usual :-)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-45481478000574699542013-08-08T05:59:06.498+01:002013-08-08T05:59:06.498+01:00Benson, You know the cure for your boredom don...Benson, You know the cure for your boredom don't you? This does seem to me to be a crucial question for climate science. What you have been doing has not had any significant effect on emissions. So, rational people would ask what are we doing that isn't working. The biggest reduction has been in the evil US where natural gas has made a big difference. Mitigation efforts have had virtually no effect.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-65062308989973509462013-08-08T04:48:53.165+01:002013-08-08T04:48:53.165+01:00Yawn.
This has become boring.Yawn.<br /><br />This has become boring.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-28413382717470808182013-08-08T04:23:50.287+01:002013-08-08T04:23:50.287+01:00No, Steve, its caused by the recent polarization o...No, Steve, its caused by the recent polarization of politics in the US. We are probably more divided now than at any time since the Gilded Age. Some of it is caused by Climategate, some by the general decrease of faith in science attendant on the seeming growing problems with the literature in medicine and other fields. People are tired of being told that various things are bad for them, only to have another study come out the next year saying the first paper was wrong. Some of it is caused by things like Hansen's 1988 testimony where actual data shows his scenario C was too alarmist, you know the one where all emissions ceased around 2000?<br /><br />A lot of progressives have an unduly reverential attitude toward modern science. In an earlier era where scientists were not as political, that may have been more justified.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-80184359474556157512013-08-08T04:02:56.180+01:002013-08-08T04:02:56.180+01:00"how much damage has been done by the whole p..."how much damage has been done by the whole politization thing"<br /><br />You mean, like this:<br /><br />"Fifty-eight percent of Republicans believe that global warming is a “hoax,” compared to 11 percent of Democrats, according to new polling that underscores political divides over climate change among U.S. residents.<br /><br />...<br /><br />A separate Pew Research Center poll showed that 44 percent of Republicans believe there is “solid evidence” of global warming, compared to 87 percent of Democrats (E2-Wire has more on that poll here)."<br /><br />http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/291601-poll-majority-of-republicans-call-global-warming-a-hoax<br /><br />And you think this is primarily caused by some climate scientists saying "hey, this is going to be a real serious problem and there ought to be serious action to limit CO2"? <br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04108945551064939734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-78246792246327068022013-08-08T03:53:21.332+01:002013-08-08T03:53:21.332+01:00Some of the leadeers are doing real cost/benefit a...Some of the leadeers are doing real cost/benefit analysis. I think Bohner is in that camp. If you watch the recent Senate hearing, noone claimed that its a hoax, except possibly Imhofe. There was a lot of disagreement about the damage that would result and what action we should take. BTW, among the worst was Boxer's very stupid performance. Whitehouse was smarter. The climate scientist witnesses did a lot of exaggerating about extreme weather and ocean acidification. Spencer omitted some inconvenient facts too.<br /><br />But hey, that's the idea in a Democracy. Representatives pay a lot of attention to the voters. What's your alternative? Dictatorship of the Green climate science axis?<br /><br />I sometimes wonder how much damage has been done by the whole politization thing and the false analogies to tobacco and other counterproductive tactics.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-63533906025484368622013-08-08T02:42:12.177+01:002013-08-08T02:42:12.177+01:00"Most politicians who oppose mitigation I thi..."Most politicians who oppose mitigation I think are doing cost benefit analysis."<br /><br />If you mean cost benefit analysis for their career, I agree.<br /><br />If you mean cost benefit analysis of mitigation vs adaptation for the nation or the globe, and detailed look at economic modelling of when it is best to start mitigation: then I think that's a wildly improbable claim. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04108945551064939734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-74197536857630374292013-08-08T02:04:27.761+01:002013-08-08T02:04:27.761+01:00I would disagree about the reason Steve. Most pol...I would disagree about the reason Steve. Most politicians who oppose mitigation I think are doing cost benefit analysis. The extremes are there on both sides, but are far from a majority. Kioto was dead on arrival in the Senate and most Dems voted Nay.<br /><br />Blaming the devil may make you feel good, but merely makes progress less likely.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-72197654849399925802013-08-08T01:53:41.094+01:002013-08-08T01:53:41.094+01:00"...and "control" efforts have had ..."...and "control" efforts have had virtually no success."<br /><br />Well, it's not as if serious control efforts have been tried now, is it? And a large part of the reason for that in the second largest greenhouse emitting nation is politicians who do not believe scientists in the field.<br /><br />But no, climate scientists: just talk about temperatures and stay out of saying anything about policy response... Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04108945551064939734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-86584330287998683002013-08-08T01:24:31.152+01:002013-08-08T01:24:31.152+01:00Yes, no analogy is perfect. However, the tobacco ...Yes, no analogy is perfect. However, the tobacco analogy is very bad. Tobacco had no real up side for society and the science was a lot less uncertain than climate science. Fossil fuels have huge upsides and "control" efforts have had virtually no success. Mitigation is mostly dead on arrival and we need to hope for an energy research breakthrough or that adaptation is not so hard.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-2954903292270393432013-08-07T22:45:29.679+01:002013-08-07T22:45:29.679+01:00David, a hell of lot of cancer and heart disease t...David, a hell of lot of cancer and heart disease that affects adults in their prime would also be "preventable" if they ate better, didn't smoke and took more exercise.<br /><br />Your analogy also sucks for this reason: the "cultural elites" who pressed for aggressive research and campaigns to modify behaviour in the West are credited with a successful limitation of the disease and its consequences in their own countries and globally.<br /><br />It's an example of how governments listening to scientifically based precautionary advice actually worked. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04108945551064939734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-37064011516228558222013-08-07T20:52:08.565+01:002013-08-07T20:52:08.565+01:00Steve, You are misrepresenting what I said and pu...Steve, You are misrepresenting what I said and putting me into a group you apparently don't like. AIDS is NOT a gay disease. However, it is easily prevented by simple behavior changes. Cancer and heart disease affect many more people and are not preventable. This is the basis for arguing that its more important to work on them.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-71620165528264994422013-08-07T14:26:11.756+01:002013-08-07T14:26:11.756+01:00s/shut up/keep out of the policy debate/
I though...s/shut up/keep out of the policy debate/<br /><br />I thought that much was pretty obvious, but perhaps it wasn't spelt out fully enough for all. Apologies for any confusion.<br /><br />Now, how about the substantive point...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-7408970230578462412013-08-07T13:48:11.133+01:002013-08-07T13:48:11.133+01:00Very interesting. Several people point out that J...Very interesting. Several people point out that James has mis-stated Tamsin's view. So what does James do? He does it again! <br /><br />Tamsin did not say climate scientists should shut up. Here is what she said in a follow-up comment at the Guardian:<br />"I am categorically *not* saying climate scientists should be silent about their findings to public or policy makers, nor am I saying we should express views that contradict the evidence for balance. Of course we should present our results (such as projected temperature changes for different future emissions scenarios).<br />In fact, I think we should do much *more* science communication so the public hear from us directly rather than only the media or (other) non-scientists. I have a whole blog about communicating the science! "Paul Matthewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612822196780702827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-84858929869391213132013-08-07T09:24:33.094+01:002013-08-07T09:24:33.094+01:00David Young's comment re HIV:
"There was...David Young's comment re HIV:<br /><br />"There was a politically correct dogma that was very powerful and promoted by the political and cultural elites" is a First World centric view of the matter which I've noticed around right wing blogs.<br /><br />In fact, the rates in many African countries still run at figures like 5 to 25% of the adult population. About 25 million Africans live with HIV, about half of them women. The number of orphaned children, and the detrimental effect on the economic development of poor nations, have been huge<br /><br />In light of this, arguments that it's a gay disease (and they always knew that,) and suggesting that funding for its research wasn't really warranted tend to piss me off.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04108945551064939734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-21778793475013335222013-08-07T06:41:41.593+01:002013-08-07T06:41:41.593+01:00Steven,
I do feel that you extend Tamsin's ar...Steven,<br /><br /><i>I do feel that you extend Tamsin's arguments beyond what she actually said in two key regards:<br /><br />1. That climate scientists should abandon their democratic rights.<br /><br />2. That this somehow only applies to climate scientists, and not to experts in other fields.<br /><br />My reading (at least) of the original article is that it does not make either of these claims. </i><br /><br />Well, regarding 2, in the title of the piece, and throughout, she exclusively refers to climate scientists. She could have said "everyone shut up, apart from a (hypothetical) handful of experts who understand every nuance of the problem". She didn't. She told climate scientists to shut up. She also blames (unspecified) advocacy as being the source of the supposed lack of trust. I consider this to be extremely naive and ahistorical. The science is attacked because it is politically inconvenient, and this has played out any number of times in different fields in the past. The idea that if we all just stuck to the "facts" (ignoring the pesky detail that the research itself is inevitably imbued with values and biases to some extent) then everyone would be nice to us, is frankly laughable.<br /><br />My opinions are at least in part empirically testable: if Tamsin were to present her entirely mainstream views on her blog - say a post about climate sensitivity, which she's been promising for well over a year - then we would see how well her friendly approach works in actually conveying climate science to sceptics.<br /><br />Until then, I'm afraid I'm the sceptic :-)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-19304257917301422972013-08-06T14:51:04.021+01:002013-08-06T14:51:04.021+01:00Richard Lawson, Climate is different that the tob...Richard Lawson, Climate is different that the tobacco fight in a lot of ways. In the climate debate, the pittance spent by the evil fossil fuel industry is dwarfed by the Green NGO's with their government funding and the Green energy lobby. In climate there is a legitimate difference of opinion as Toll points out about effects and policy. There is even doubt about how serious the problem is going to be. Climate science has been rather poor at predicting actual damage and effects. It seems there has been some rather dramatic exaggeration, i.e., Hansen's 1988 testimony.<br /><br />A better analogy might be the AIDS response. There was real disagreement about how serious the problem would be. There were lots of other diseases that killed more people that needed increased research funding, and there were simple measures that would avoid spreading the disease. But yet there was an industry that constantly told us that we were all in danger, that lack of AIDS funding was due to prejudice, and that you were a bad person if you felt other diseases should be a higher priority. There was a politically correct dogma that was very powerful and promoted by the political and cultural elites.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-7403738974171732742013-08-06T12:57:56.098+01:002013-08-06T12:57:56.098+01:00@Richard L
Anyone should be free to advocate whate...@Richard L<br />Anyone should be free to advocate whatever.<br /><br />Advocating decarbonization, however, implies that you believe that the negative impacts of climate change are greater than its positive impacts; and that the net impacts of climate change outweigh the net impacts of climate policy.<br /><br />There is no agreement on these matters and, by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, there cannot be agreement. It is a political position.<br /><br />I happen to support this political position, but does not make it any less of a political position.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-658819236080291442013-08-06T12:41:27.994+01:002013-08-06T12:41:27.994+01:00Richard Tol says medical analogies are inappropria...Richard Tol says medical analogies are inappropriate. I disagree. There is a very close analogy with the 20 year battle to show that smoking tobacco caused lung cancer. Richard Doll and other researchers were fought every inch of the way by lobbyists paid by the tobacco industry, just as the fossil fuel industry funds much of the AGW "sceptic" movement.<br /><br />Before it is pointed out, yes, no analogy is perfect. Climatology is not medicine. The ultimate aim of medical science is (or should be) always to improve the human condition, and this is not so by definition in climatology. <br /><br />In the end, the present debate could be resolved along the following lines: "Any professional climatologist should be free to advocate decarbonisation of the world economy. They should exercise caution and humility when advocating whether the decarbonisation should be achieved by carbon taxes, trading permits or other mechanisms".DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-2274140049485980082013-08-06T12:35:43.978+01:002013-08-06T12:35:43.978+01:00Steven,
My reading (at least) of the original ar...Steven,<br /><br /><i> My reading (at least) of the original article is that it does not make either of these claims. As has already been stated in a number of comments, Tamsin's central argument is simply that people should restrict their involvement in public debate to their own areas of professional expertise. This applies to climate scientists no more or less than anyone else.</i><br /><br />My problem with this argument as it applies to the debate about public policy on climate change is that it’s an issue which impacts all of us, both in terms of the impacts of climate change itself and of the policy responses, but the number of people with professional expertise is small. So if we all really do restrict our involvement in public debate to our own areas of expertise then a lot of us will be restricted from taking part in the debate on an issue which has big implications for many, if not all, of us. <br /><br />I agree with you that in order to achieve a meaningful outcome those with relevant expertise do need to contribute to the debate, and it's right that we recognise their expertise and acknowledge the limitations of our own. But here are many different aspects to the debate including the fact that, as Tamsin correctly pointed out, our policy choices will be partly dictated by our values, so in that respect surely any of us can make a meaningful contribution even if we are not experts on the technical aspects of the policies in question, and scientists no less than others. And that's aside from the point that policy decisions must often depend on the nature of the problem itself so scientists' espertise may help shape the range of policies under discussion even if they do not express a view on what we ultimately decide to do. <br /> <br />andrew adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17196332706764660436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-66136486575914174192013-08-06T12:05:49.866+01:002013-08-06T12:05:49.866+01:00David,
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of the par...David,<br /><br />Fair enough, I wasn't aware of the particular issue with vertebraplasty so slightly missed your point. I'm certainly aware in any case that there are treatments which are widely used for which the evidence of their effectiveness is sparse, or the trial data unavailable or are outright bogus. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a conflict of interest issue (at least not entirely so), sometimes treatments become widely accepted despite the lack of evidence and are prescribed in good faith. Even homeopaths as far as I can tell genuinely believe their treatments are beneficial. <br /><br />That's not to say conflicts of interests don't exist in medicine or that there aren't other big problems around the way products are tested and marketed and trial results published (or not - unavailability of data is a bigger problem in medicine than in climate science). Clearly there are big problems, and I'm not sure how true it is to say that "medicine admits its problems and studies them". You only have to look at the reaction of parts of the industry to Ben Goldacre's book. <br /><br />Of course many of these problems stem from the fact that drug development is, rightly or wrongly, driven by large corporations who invest huge amounts of money in research and need to see a return on their investment. That creates certain pressures and potential problems which don’t apply to other areas of research which are largely government funded, like climate science. That doesn't mean those areas are free of issues, I don’t doubt that all areas of science will have their share of problems, but making claims about climate science based on an assumption that it shares the same problems as medicine begs the question.<br />andrew adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17196332706764660436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-36221816886956453022013-08-06T09:13:37.793+01:002013-08-06T09:13:37.793+01:00Interesting post, James. However, I do feel that y...Interesting post, James. However, I do feel that you extend Tamsin's arguments beyond what she actually said in two key regards:<br /><br />1. That climate scientists should abandon their democratic rights.<br /><br />2. That this somehow only applies to climate scientists, and not to experts in other fields.<br /><br />My reading (at least) of the original article is that it does not make either of these claims. As has already been stated in a number of comments, Tamsin's central argument is simply that people should restrict their involvement in public debate to their own areas of professional expertise. This applies to climate scientists no more or less than anyone else.<br /><br />I would argue that, in public discussion, the best outcomes are achieved when: (a) those with relevant expertise contribute, and (b) all participants restrict their contributions to their areas of expertise.<br /><br />As climate scientists, we can and should participate in democratic processes, including the process of policy formulation. However, it is both possible and desirable that we do so without straying outside our areas of professional expertise.<br /><br />Regardless, I think (hope?) we could all agree that Tamsin has triggered a fascinating and important debate.Steven Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15320484689072396126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-84203467077259113602013-08-06T06:16:30.260+01:002013-08-06T06:16:30.260+01:00@David
Agreed.@David<br />Agreed.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.com