Some great advice on how to start your own business online! 
For more information please visit www.onlinejobhunter.info

Shrinking polar icecaps (and credibility)

Langtry points out an article in Britain's Independent that's both laughable and revealing:

Global warming is 'twice as bad as previously thought'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
27 January 2005

Global warming might be twice as catastrophic as previously thought, flooding settlements on the British coast and turning the interior into an unrecognisable tropical landscape, the world's biggest study of climate change shows.

Researchers from some of Britain's leading universities used computer modelling to predict that under the "worst-case" scenario, London would be under water and winters banished to history as average temperatures in the UK soar up to 20C higher than at present.
Golly, Cleetus! Them scientists is usin' kom-pewters, so they's gotta be right!

Seriously -- Brits buy into fear-mongering like this, and we Americans are supposed to be the ignorant rubes?

Science Editor Steve Connor apparently thinks that a study showing the impact of global warming to be "twice as bad as previously thought" is dire news. To me, it says that scientists don't really have a clue about how to accurately forecast global warming.

When you measure the same thing twice, you don't expect the second result to be double the first. If it is, that's a clue that your measurements are worthless. If the second try is 100% higher, perhaps a third try would yield results 100% lower -- that is, zero.

Yes, yes, I know, I know. These scientists used a new! improved! model, with thousands of computers! working in parallel! But any model incorporates assumptions that may or may not prove valid. Change your assumptions, and you change your result. It's just that simple, no matter how many computers are grinding away at the calculations.

Also notable is that the article mentions only the report's "worst-case" scenario. How likely is that scenario to occur? Ten percent? One percent? .00001 percent? And what are the other scenarios like? How likely are they? Are there any where the earth actually gets cooler?

It would be nice to know.

However, Mr. Connor apparently sees his purpose as terrifying Britons into immediate and unwarranted action, rather than skeptically assessing the most drastic outcome of a single new study.

And he's not alone. This earlier post described how one scientist resigned from a U.N.-sponsored global warming research team because he felt the team leader had politicized their research, using the media "to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming."

Global warming tends to bring out the zealot in people who in other circumstances, I imagine, would be completely rational. There's a place for breathless shock journalism like this, and it's next to the checkout registers at the supermarket.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Domo arigato" for the plug, Gaijin Biker! You have raised some good points that my snarky post ignored: namely ...

"When you measure the same thing twice, you don't expect the second result to be double the first. If it is, that's a clue that your measurements are worthless. If the second try is 100% higher, perhaps a third try would yield results 100% lower -- that is, zero."

Most meteorologists do the same sort of paralell processing that Conner's scientists did: they'll be the first to tell you that wildly different results ensue, making the process of weather prediction very difficult. The difference between a fringe environmental scientist and your local weatherman is that the weatherman will look back on established historical data & the "scientist" will create a scenario to suit his predetermined outcome. Their excuse being that when one is talking about "saving the planet" any amount of hyperbole aand bombast is justified.

Of course, I just couldn't resist the opportunity to make fun of the timing of his article!
 

Posted by Sharon

Anonymous said...

Good points, Gaijin. 

Posted by ArklahomBoy

Anonymous said...

Some months ago, "Scientific American" had a brief blurb about a researcher who estimated that (sorry, fuzzy memory here) roughly half the global warming of the past half-decade is attributable to increased solar activity. I've not encountered anything else about this person's work; if true, it would seriously damage the global warming nuts, for what will they do? Put a blanket over the sun?

It reminds me of the poor farmer (his museum was mentioned in a past Lonely Planet guide to Japan) who owned the land on which the volcano Usu-zan suddenly appeared during WW2. The Japanese government sent someone to tell him to "make it stop putting out light," since they were afraid the American bombers might navigate by the volcano. Right, I'll just go outside and turn the volcano off.

Hmm, I've digressed. Sumimasen. 

Posted by Comrade_Tovarich

Anonymous said...

No problem, Comrade. I'm adding your blog to the links list. 

Posted by GaijinBiker

Anonymous said...

"When you measure the same thing twice, you don't expect the second result to be double the first. If it is, that's a clue that your measurements are worthless. If the second try is 100% higher, perhaps a third try would yield results 100% lower -- that is, zero."

You're exactly right.

For my graduate degree (Computer Science) I had to build a model simulation large-scale systems. Results had to be consistent with itself and the real world. 100% variation is a failure -- or more academically, a field for future research -- not a conclusion.

Keep up the great blog! I've added you to my blogroll. 

Posted by Dan

Anonymous said...

The same style of reporting was true for a recent population study. One British paper had a headline of "Population may soar by trillions" or something like that, but this was only the highest estimate the study made out of many. It was way out on the curve, and no one, including the study itself, expected it to happen. Of course, that didn't stop some dumbshit editor from making it their headline.

The real result of the study was that populations were set to continue increasing mildly for the next few decades, then begin decreasing. Wouldn't know this from the article, of course.  

Posted by Zachary Braverman

Archives

Pages

Powered by Blogger.

Followers