Re: [asa] Creation Care

*That is, the community is not in the uncertainty phase since there is a
framework of understanding that explains the key features of climate for the
last 420,000 years.*

Ok, but that seems very different to me than what I take to be a much bigger
claim: that the rate of warming can be predicted with any certainty over a
discrete period of time. If you're saying the community has reached the
consensus phase on the broad mechanisms of climate change, and part of that
is that man-made greenhouse gasses speed warming, I wouldn't doubt that.
But if you're saying the community has reached a consensus that within the
next century the rate of warming will certainly be X degrees, I would doubt
that -- or at least, I would question whether that is a meaningful
consensus, given the uncertainties inherent in the sort of modeling that has
to be done to make that kind of prediction.

A question then: is the consensus more of the former type (broad consenus
on mechanisms including human produced greenhouse gasses), or is it more of
the latter type (specific consensus on the extent and effects of
human-produced warming trend over a discrete period of time)?

*But isn't it possible that they've all been duped or are involved in some
secret conspiracy?*
**
I can see how my comment about politics could be taken this way, but this
isn't what I meant. I don't mean to suggest this is the case. I despise
that kind of "the scientists are all lying to us" thinking as much as you
do.

But -- what is more likely to get publicized, to draw funding, resources,
notoriety, a cover in Science or Nature or Time, etc: a study that says
human produced greenhouse gasses will cause 20 degrees of warming by 2110,
putting New York and LA entirely underwater, or a study that says the more
likely range is 2-5 degrees, causing relatively modest disruption? I think
the NY Times article I linked in the discussion thread is telling here: why
are the climate scientists who accept human induced warming but project more
modest effects called "heretics?" Why do even mainstream climate scientists
feel threatened if they don't speak in catastrophic terms?

**

On 1/21/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dave,
> I think I owe you a much better response than the one I wrote
previously. Going back and reading all the posts I realize I'm using the
terms "controversy" and "uncertainty" in specific ways that differ
from usage in other contexts.
>
> Based on my own involvement in participating in or managing numerous
scientific and technological issues, I have observed three stages or phases
in the resolution of a major question. Not all phases always occur in a
given situation. Obviously, real life is never this simple but it helps to
have this simplified perspective.
>
> 1) First, there is often a phase of "uncertainty." This is when there is
no framework or overarching model that fits available data to answer the
question at hand. This may be because the physics of the situation isn't
adequately understood, or the complexity is too great for the modeling
resources at hand, or there isn't enough unambiguous data, or other reasons.
One example is when high-Tc superconductors were first observed. The
standard BCS theory of superconductivity didn't fit and there was no good
theory or model of understanding it. It was a period of uncertainty. In
this phase the scientific community addressing the issue is focused
primarily on identifying the right model and gathering data for such an
eventual model.
>
> 2) Then there is often a phase of "controversy." This is when there are
multiple models, each of which fit the available data and could provide the
relevant framework for further work. The scientific community then coalesces
around the various models (or proposes new ones) and the race is on to find
the definitive differentiating experiment that will show which is the
correct model. This is a classic and exciting phase. An example here is the
phase when high-Tc superconductor (which really aren't that well understood
even today) models differed on whether they exhibited s-wave or d-wave
symmetry. Years later, a very elegant experiment was devised to answer the
question in favor of d-wave.
>
> 3) Finally there is the phase of "consensus." This is when there is no
uncertainty or controversy. The community of scientists often have passed
through one or both of the other phases and finally have enough data to
confirm the big picture. This means that there is a framework for further
work and at this stage resources are focused on refining the details and
working through the implications. It does not mean that there are no
disagreements or that everything is "certain." Far from it. It just means
that the physics of the situation is sufficiently understood and verified
that there is no significant camp in the scientific community working on
alternative models. Here I think of BCS theory to explain low-Tc
superconductors. There were several competing models but when Bardeen,
Cooper, and Schrieffer published their paper, consensus was almost immediate
and complete. Competitors, according to legend at least, just closed their
notebooks and worked on other problems when they saw this elegant solution.
>
> What I was looking for while investigating global warming and climate
change was how the community was behaving. Which of these phases were they
in, based on their behavior and the types of papers being published? I
learned that there were no competing models and that the basic climate
model, complex though it was, fit the data well enough to be considered the
right model. That is, the community is not in the uncertainty phase since
there is a framework of understanding that explains the key features of
climate for the last 420,000 years. No competing models are currently being
pursued and there doesn't seem to be a need for one so the community isn't
in the controversy phase. That means the community is in consensus mode and
is focused on working out the many details of improving such a complex model
and also expanding into the next level to use this framework to address
implications in more detail.
>
> This does not mean that there isn't controversy and uncertainty
outside the scientific community. Indeed, this community is even blaming
itself for having done a terrible job of communication so that even
scientists outside of the field of expertise, let alone non-scientists,
don't have a good understanding of the status. The noise and chaos is
outside the community, not inside.
>
> Some of you may of course ask, isn't it still possible that this
entire community is wrong? That possibility isn't zero but past experience
shows that almost never is a paradigm overthrown once it has been verified
with a broad set of data. It may be superceded by a more encompassing theory
(like QM over classical mechanics) but seldom proved wrong. This is very
much an authoritative (not authoritarian!) community and they are the best
experts to trust. But isn't it possible that they've all been duped or are
involved in some secret conspiracy? We'll address that in the next note.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Opderbeck
> To: Randy Isaac
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care
>
>
> To my surprise, for example, the global warming issue is quite clear with
no controversy in the community of scientific expertise in the field. I
found that global warming is significant and is primarily due to
anthropogenic sources.
>
> Based on what I've read and also not being an expert by any stretch, I'm
inclined to agree that warming is a real problem with anthropegenic
sources. I don't know how you can say, however, that the issue is "quite
clear with no controversy in the community of scientific expertise in the
field." What I've seen suggests the question is clear as mud, particularly
when it comes to the extent of human causation and the projected rate,
trends and effects of warming, and further that every position in the
scientific community is significantly affected by politics. Why are you
saying it's so easy to brush off every criticism?
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.