Interesting article about MIT and it’s desire to continue research on climate science and the conundrum it faces. Where does it get its funding?
So, should climate research continue? Or do we already have all the answers?
Actually, it’s not clear at all.
You seem to be under a couple of misapprehensions.
Firstly, the science of climate change does not involve saying “we know everything about the climate”. Scientists don’t say that, the IPCC don’t say that.
The fact that there are unknowns in climate science does not invalidate all of its findings. It’s like saying “How can you be sure that objects will fall to earth…we don’t have a quantum theory of gravity yet”.
The simple fact of the matter is that we have good grounds for saying that the earth is getting hotter on average, and that and an increase in atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause.
Secondly, the implication is that this work is not getting funding because it’s controversial. Fact is, all science struggles for funding, and now in the recession, research grants are very scarce.
It doesn’t help that their research partly goes against the findings of many other experts. Maybe they’re on to something. But more likely, they aren’t.
I’m not digging into my pocket to fund this.
:rolleyes: Yeah, like that’s gonna be a problem. You do understand, don’t you, Wilbo, that there’s a lot more corporate money going into the denial side of this than the “warmist” side?
So it’s an article about two climate scientists who would like to do low-level climate research untainted by the politics of the global warming debate. They would like to answer some unanwsered questions and then draw conclusions from the science rather than their own pre-conceptions. They aren’t saying anything about global warming at all, which is presumably why they’re having trouble getting funding.
And yet the article somehow twists this into a grotesque piece of biased global warming bashing. Whoever wrote it should be ashamed of themselves, for they are a useless hack and don’t deserve a keyboard.
Au contraire. The writer is evidently a useful hack, to the people who pay him.
That whole article makes no fucking sense. It decries using models to predict climate then lauds a group that is going to – wait for it – “create an institutional culture that accords its highest values to science that quantitatively predicts or explains observations and experiments.” Then it makes a claim. totally unsupported by either logic or facts, that “Clearly, government funding for a program like this is not going to come from politicians determined to demonize anyone that refuses to accept the dogma”.
Might as well say that about all of MIT’s research" Clearly, government funding for a projects to look at X,Y, Z". There are tons of projects at MIT and other research universities funded by corporations. I used to sit on the panel that distributed it for one large company.
Conservatives should all go to hell for telling so many lies.
This is actually code for “we should elect more Republicans.”
I see that many dopers are already on the case here, good.
Suffice to say that scientist already know the effects of all that natural phenomena, knowing why it happens is not a show stopper, and yes scientists already take the effects of those phenomenons into account in their modeling. Ignoring that last bit is a favorite of the denier media.
The button at the bottom of the page says “Send this to a friend” it might as well say “send this to whoever you do not want as a friend”
I thought a useful hack was a flack.
There is always some conflict between long term research on fundamentals and short term research with fairly immediate impact. In most academic fields there isn’t a lot of short term impact, so it is fine, but with climate science there is clearly going to be more money devoted to looking at problems which may affect us in under 50 years. Do these guys know how much more accurate their work is going to make the models and how soon they will be done with it, even with funding? Probably not, nor should they. But maybe the funding agencies feel they can’t wait.
A scene from an imaginary sci-fi movie springs to mind, with the hero scientist frantically working on coming up with a way to stop the alien invaders, while an old scientist says “what’s the rush. If I understand their exobiology from top to bottom we’d be able to stop them better. It should only take me a year or two.”
It seems that the “suggestions” that research be discontinued, are best ignored, no matter what the specifics are. Research is never over. There is no reason to end inquiry or the “quest for knowledge” in any field. When you consider that these sort of “suggestions” are almost always (I did use the weasel word “almost”) religious or political in nature, for someone else’s expediency or profit, or to keep “the peasants” ignorant and under control, that makes me even more suspicious.
Or they can just stay on Earth and wait for it to heat up. 
This is just the usual ‘we can’t trust those climate scientists, they’re obviously all corrupted lefty politicians’ crap. Right, a privately funded research group, that’ll get to the bottom of all this. Just look at all the privately funded research in the past, there isn’t a single bit of bias in any of that.
Is this new group going to start from zero, and get all the data themselves, or are they going to demand access to all the data that all the corrupted scientists have been gathering for so long? Cuz if they want something untainted then they have to start from scratch and reproduce something that’s taken groups around the world decades to build.
Obviously not everything is known, but if these guys claim to be climate scientists and don’t know why there’s a correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, they really need to find a new line of work. That was the first thing that anyone learned about climate science.
Dang, once again I missed something.
That the scientists **don’t **know why it (the natural phenomenon) happens is not a show stopper for climate science.
And IIRC there are already several theories that deal with those phenomenons.
So the article in the OP claims that there is an over-politicization of the issue and that there is an over-reliance on computer models, the reality is that politicians of the right have over relied on guys that are not scientists to make their political attacks on science fly:
So far it has been the height of contempt when Lord Monkton (Stop saying you are even a honorary member of the house of lords, you are not) was invited by the Republican party to be their “expert” witness in the most recent house hearings on the matter.
The fact that this fraud is not being rejected in public, but that he is being used to fool the American people by the Republicans, tells me who is really politicizing the issue.
Well, that’s not quite what the article says; “Why does carbon dioxide and temperature covary as they do in glacial cycles?” Covariance of two factors is often a very difficult relationship to model because you can end up with some very complex, non-linear differential relationships with enough lag-lead that discerning primary response from feedback, especially from sparse data or across a large multivariate system that never comes to an equilibrium.
I think what the author of the article is trying to ask is more along the lines of, “Is it possible to decouple political and emotional motivations and influences behind funding from the basic science being done,” to which the answer is “probably not completely”. Certainly many of the researchers involved in climate science are, unsurprisingly, advocates for the hypothesis of anthropological climate change. And many of the critics of this research are, also unsurprisingly, of a conservative bent that would oppose any climate modification program as being “yet another overarching government entitlement program”. As with most highly politicized issues, the people who actually understand the most about the issue and are, if not completely objective, as least cognizant about the plausibility of the different arguments are silently plugging away, trapped between two shouting extremes.
Stranger
IIUC that covariance deals with the lag of Carbon Dioxide with warming in the past ( the old “CO2 lags temperature” argument, recent CO2 increase has caused recent warming without any time lag. And indeed this was explained many times before:
Now the points that the article mention are needlessly confusing, or are they planning it that way?
The peculiar wording of the first “we don’t know” made it hard to figure what is exactly their concern, however if I read it properly, it is indeed the old chestnut of the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing after the global temperature has increased (CO2 does both, it increases temperature and then temperature eventually increases CO2 by releasing the gas that was in the ground or the oceans making the situation worse).
And looking at the last point: “We may have a good idea why the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been increasing over the past 100 years but why has it been generally declining over the last 50 million years?”
Sounds like the “missing” CO2 sinks that when I look for examples researchers usually put the “missing” in quotes as the articles make the point that there is already very good evidence that they are accounted for or that there is no evidence that they are doing enough to quickly sequester what humans are putting in the atmosphere.
IMHO that article is a good example of what I see the climate change deniers headed for, just like creationists they are now creating their own terminology with integrated “gotchas” to appear to be more scientific that what they really are.
They are reaching the “Intelligent Design” level of creationism by making terms like Irreducible complexity that are not accepted by science, but they will try to fool many by creating terms made to sound as scientific as possible.