Re: [asa] Creation Care

Randy wrote: "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."

I need clarification on this. Wikipedia says, "The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial/interglacial periods within an ice age." This Wikipedia statement is consistent what I heard throughout my 25-year career as an Earth scientist. Ice ages are certainly key features of climate, they've occurred within 420 000 years, and there is no agreement on causes despite multiple possible or likely mechanisms. This implies there are competing models.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Randy Isaac<mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>
  To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care

  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<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
    To: Randy Isaac<mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto: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?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 23 04:19:05 2007