Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Getting close now . . .

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran <mike@usinter.net>
    http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf? file=/nature/journal/v418/n6897/full/418476a_fs.html Scientific uncertainty: When doubt is a sure thing Is it
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 27, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?
      file=/nature/journal/v418/n6897/full/418476a_fs.html

      Scientific uncertainty: When doubt is a sure thing

      Is it possible to adopt a more rigorous approach to the communication
      of scientific uncertainty? Jim Giles talks to the climatologists
      whose pursuit of this goal has seen them dubbed the 'uncertainty
      cops'.

      Stephen Schneider is very certain in his views about uncertainty. As
      a leading climate researcher at Stanford University in California, he
      has plenty of experience in dealing with it. Global temperatures are
      set to rise — but no one is sure by how much. And although this
      warming will influence variables from biodiversity to economic
      productivity, exactly how it will do so remains unclear.

      Schneider cannot eliminate uncertainties from his work, but he has
      little time for fellow scientists who are sloppy in expressing just
      how unsure they are. He argues, for instance, that the phrase "low
      confidence" should have a precise, quantitative meaning. He espouses
      the use of graphical tools to illustrate where scientific
      uncertainties come from. And he is adamant that statistical
      confidence levels should be attached to even the most complex
      scientific predictions.

      Together with Richard Moss, currently executive director of the
      Global Change Research Program in Washington DC, which coordinates
      the US government's climate-change research, Schneider has been
      pestering his colleagues about these ideas for more than five years.
      With plans for a major new international climate assessment just
      getting started, Schneider and Moss are gearing up to promote their
      agenda once again. They also believe that other subjects that
      engender both public concern and scientific uncertainty could benefit
      from taking a similar approach.

      Perhaps wanderer can do better than I can here--although as and
      undergrad I did have a 5000 level probability math course and the
      general statistics course.

      My view is this is more crap based on the false premise that CO2 as a
      GHG is CORRELATED to climate global temperatures--and the causal
      nature of the EMF feedbacks is not understood. The biological
      feedbacks form a modulating factor that on some level voids the
      dynamic of uncertainty.

      For instance, the connection between the archae methonogens and salt
      loving archae that has existed for billions of years--as seen in
      their genes, really says that climate has been modulated for billions
      of years. At the very least feedbacks have netted life--otherwise
      their DNA would not be here to tell us that. The uncertainty or
      unpredictability lies in the stimulas--not the response, certainly
      over longer timescales. Random inputs to climate do occur.
      Milankovitch itself is a chaotic oscillator. But if you were to
      multiply chaos times itself we are well on our ways to the gas ball
      of Venus or the ice block of Mars--and quite lifeless. Therefore,
      because the CO2 levels, and the changes in hydrology, get to the very
      modulating feedbacks, the cause and effect is clear. When you bring
      the water to the GOC, for instance, flowing down the Colorado river,
      to a trickle, you are going to create fair weather conditions there
      and bring regional drought. It is just a cause and effect and really
      simple. More CO2? You change a highly tuned system and the way it
      feeds back cirrus and alters EMFs--biologically and electrically. As
      the verying outputs are understood, the margins of error will
      dispatch.

      Example. In the previous Nature article it discussed the Younger
      Dryas. And cited that as uncertainty. Wrong. The Younger Dryas was
      caused by a movement of the Mississippi sourcing from the GOM to the
      North Atlantic--which didn't have a hydrology based biosphere . . .
      yet. The GOM lost lots of sedimentation and detritus it had received
      toward producing the EMF cirrus feedbacks. So things got colder.
      There is nothing uncertain about how it worked . . .
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.