Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby dissident » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 17:13:41

Tanada wrote:Unfortunately Kaiser the whole cosmic rays seeding clouds has already been debunked. Because the solar cycles are fairly regular it was not hard for paleoclimate records to be compared to past cycles and the impact is demonstrated. Unfortunately the scale of impact is greatly smaller than some people claim.

Natural solar cycles have an impact of about 1 C over a cycle of about 4400 years. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are already at or over 1C of increase from 1850 temperatures, so best case scenario this will gradually compensate for the already emitted greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere if we stop additional emissions in the next 15 years.


The GCR-climate crank theory was BS from before it was ever conceived. GCR fluxes are anti-correlated with solar fluxes for the simple reason that the Sun's magnetic field intensifies during solar maxima compared to solar minima. And GCR are composed out of mostly protons and other ionized particles and therefore are deflected. The 11 year solar cycle is actually a 22 year magnetic pole reversal of the Sun. The magnetic field is weakest at the midway point in this transition.

GCR are supposed to affect clouds via cloud seeding (via water cluster formation on positive ions). So they would be most active in this role during solar minima. In other words they would be increasing he Earth's albedo when the Sun was less active (as long as its magnetic field was weaker; the sunspot cycle is more complex than simply solar magnetic reversals). So if we are going to invoke the Maunder minimum then we are looking at more cloud albedo and hence less ground absorption of sunlight. Now let's look at the solar cycle intensity over the last 50 years:

Image

Do you see a trend? I don't see any trend which would even correlate with the temperature increase after 1980:

Image

Where is the fingerprint of the 11 year solar cycle?
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4581
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Apneaman » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 17:19:48

Yeah, I think I'll just go with my hunches and anything that sounds better because that is more emotionally satisfying than reality. Just like my stoner teenage days. "Check it out....(buddy hands me a tattered copy of von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" ) aliens built the pyramids. Aliens built the pyramids!. No way......WAY......AWESOME DUDE" Takes another toke. Read it later that evening and come away thinking I have been enlightened and a secret cover up has been revealed. It's scientific dude. Sadly, many of us remain 14 for life - even when we're 64.
Apneaman
permanently banned
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 08 Oct 2014, 00:24:47

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby dissident » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 17:25:59

AgentR11 wrote:glacial / interglacials are cyclical
Its perfectly reasonable to suggest that ABSENT CO2 releases by humans over the past 10k yrs or so, that we'd be approaching time for glaciation.

People think such a force is of comparable magnitude to AGW. In reality it has long since been overwhelmed by the amount of CO2 that we've put in the atmosphere; and so, no, in the 1970s there was no scientific prediction of "global coolling" or a coming ice age.

These two sets of statements are entirely compatible.


The glaciation cycle is 100% due to CO2 levels falling below 400 ppmv and long term changes in the continental distribution. The orbital cycles of Earth have not undergone any transition over the last several billion years. The onset of the "ice age" 3.3 million years ago has everything to do with key geological events, namely the closing of the Panama channel and similar process in the region of Indonesia, and the long term decline of CO2 concentrations over the last 100+ million years.

Image

Once the atmospheric CO2 was below 400 ppmv, the orbital cycles coupled with the high latitude continental distribution resulted in a glaciation cycle. We have now kicked ourselves out of the ice age (the CO2-equivalent concentration right now is over 460 ppmv). But there are hysteresis effects (e.g. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets) that will take a while to work themselves out. And make no mistake, the current CO2 levels are self-sustaining at the very least since the ocean CO2 sink will be nullified before the anthropogenic emissions can fully work themselves out of the system.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4581
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Synapsid » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 17:34:47

AgentR11 and everybody,

I'm delving into memory here, but as I recall Stephen Schneider, a grad student at Columbia at the time, had been examining the newly available charts of marine isotope stages, which showed us that the current run of ice ages extended back more than two and a half million years and that after a little less than a million years ago the timing for glacial/interglacial cycles changed from 41 000 years to 100 000 years.

He noted that, going by that pattern and looking at how long it's been since the last glacial ended, we might be ready to move into the next. The media got hold of that, and away they went.

Again, this is from memory but I think it's accurate at least in outline.

Also, one thing that the record of marine isotope stages shows is that moving into a glacial is a matter of several tens of thousands of years. The ice sheets don't come back on anything like a human time scale.

William Ruddiman pointed out a decade or so ago that the current interglacial shows anomalous trends in CO2 and methane concentration in the atmosphere, compared to previous ones. The pattern early in interglacials when warming is underway is for CO2 concentration to rise rapidly followed by a rapid rise in methane, and then for both to decline much more slowly as global temperature drops. Ruddiman pointed out that the expected CO2 decline reversed about 9000 years ago, as did the decline in methane about 5000 years ago. He attributed the first reversal to forest clearance as agriculture spread into Europe, and the second to the expansion of paddy-rice cultivation in East and SE Asia. There's been lots of research into the question; Ruddiman's view seems to have held up well.

An implication of this picture is that, even before the rise in CO2 from the Industrial Revolution got under way, levels of CO2 and methane were already higher than they would have been and the next ice age was being postponed.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby dissident » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 18:00:47

The CO2 has been dropping over the last 3.3 million years for much the same reasons it was dropping before, chemical weathering sink and not enough volcanic activity. So a change in the glaciation periodicity is more than expected. The snowball Earth regimes hundreds of millions of years ago were dislodged by CO2 buildup. The glaciation-associated CO2 minima would have been less deep 2 million years ago so it would be easier to escape the glaciation pit.

At the end of the day CO2 is the prime agent in the thermal balance of the atmosphere. If it is high enough, then insolation associated ice growth is not possible. It is now high enough and will remain high enough for the next 300,000 years. See Archer's papers.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4581
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 18:32:56

We discussed this topic in my 8th grade Science class in 1964. It was still a topic in common discussion in 1978 as noted in the article above. It certainly did not "come and go".

Nor have I made any mention of suppressed articles, conspiracies, or the like. You all are discussing facts not in evidence.

I simply want to focus on a few things that obviously you do not wish to discuss:

1) The online version of anything is not reality. At best, it is a partially accurate description of reality. Yet there are people here - whom I am certain are not 64+ years old and who did not experience the things that I did, that are telling me I am wrong - simply because my version based on actual experience does not correspond to their readings on the net. The net is not reality, there is a real world, with people in it.

2) All of you are so deluded by and immersed in the virtual reality that this will be the last generation that even discusses the topic of whether the online version is real or not. Many of you selectively read online articles already and delude yourselves that you have some form of filter in your head that allows you to reliably sort truth from fiction, reality from unreality, and yet what you actually form in your mind is composed of 100% online material, mostly from unreliable and unconfirmed sources.

3) All anybody has to do for you to figuratively worship at their feet is to claim some special knowledge of Science. (There, I capitalized it, even though I usually don't, because it would be rude not to when discussing someone's religion.)
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby AgentR11 » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 19:36:50

Synapsid wrote: timing for glacial/interglacial cycles changed from 41 000 years to 100 000 years.


That is correct, and that is the time scale I am referring too.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR11
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6011
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 08:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Apneaman » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 19:44:05

kaisertard, all online eh? What about the shrinking glaciers in BC and Alberta that I have been visiting regularly since I was a little kid? Some of them are now so far away from the parking lots that only the most fit and adventurous people can manage the hike up to them while many others are now closed to the public due to their instability from melting. There are many more examples, but why bother telling tards? I'm not surprised you remember the 8th grade. Probably the toughest 4 years of your life.
Apneaman
permanently banned
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 08 Oct 2014, 00:24:47

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Apneaman » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 19:44:50

Once Stable Greenland Glacier Facing Rapid Melt


http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nort ... rILYt.dpuf
Apneaman
permanently banned
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 08 Oct 2014, 00:24:47

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 19:59:42

Apneaman wrote:kaisertard, all online eh? What about the shrinking glaciers in BC and Alberta that I have been visiting regularly since I was a little kid? Some of them are now so far away from the parking lots that only the most fit and adventurous people can manage the hike up to them while many others are now closed to the public due to their instability from melting. There are many more examples, but why bother telling tards? I'm not surprised you remember the 8th grade. Probably the toughest 4 years of your life.


In spite of your juvenile insults, I will simply note that natural warming is occurring and will continue for 1200-6000 more years until we reach the Climatic Optimum for this glacial cycle. Warming is not evidence that confirms the AGW theory, only a 'tard would think that.

No, the online world does not trump reality. Those of us that live in the real world are worried about a very real problem, not AGW. We worry that we will run out of affordable and accessible fossil fuels to burn for energy, before we find adequate substitutes.

That is the central theme of PO.com, for you 'tards who have forgotten.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Lore » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 20:17:10

We've already long exceeding any normal rate of warming through natural climate variables.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9026
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Apneaman » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 20:49:20

Kaisertard, no worries soon enough. AGW combined with the other overshoot predicaments - overpopulation, 6th mass extinction, ocean acidification, etc, make human extinction the most likely scenario. Probably won't see a new century. Be interesting to see a major scientific study on the cumulative effects of ape endeavors. BTW there is nothing more juvenile than trying to argue science using unverifiable personal anecdotes and opinion.


Humans could be among the victims of sixth 'mass extinction', scientists warn

"And the study, which was published in the journal Science Advances on Friday and described by its authors as "conservative", said humans were likely to be among the species lost.

"If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover and our species itself would likely disappear early on," lead author Gerardo Ceballos of the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico said."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-20/s ... ys/6560700
Apneaman
permanently banned
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 08 Oct 2014, 00:24:47

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 20:57:28

KaiserJeep wrote:We discussed this topic in my 8th grade Science class in 1964. It was still a topic in common discussion in 1978 as noted in the article above. It certainly did not "come and go".

Nor have I made any mention of suppressed articles, conspiracies, or the like. You all are discussing facts not in evidence.

I simply want to focus on a few things that obviously you do not wish to discuss: ...

You say
This was widely reported in the news media, and widely discussed in scientific journals, which back issues have never been made available online. The evidence is there in popular press such as the online back issues of National Geographic and Life. Unfortunately those few "climate scientists" (a term that is without actual meaning) who are still around are actively suppressing their own earlier opinions in the current AGW hysteria.

Let us discuss these scientific journal articles that you infallibly remember personally experiencing reading (but can't remember which journals or authors).
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Apneaman » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 20:58:07

Scientists say Greenland just opened up a major new ‘floodgate’ of ice into the ocean


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... the-ocean/
Apneaman
permanently banned
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 08 Oct 2014, 00:24:47

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 21:21:50

Keith_McClary wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:We discussed this topic in my 8th grade Science class in 1964. It was still a topic in common discussion in 1978 as noted in the article above. It certainly did not "come and go".

Nor have I made any mention of suppressed articles, conspiracies, or the like. You all are discussing facts not in evidence.

I simply want to focus on a few things that obviously you do not wish to discuss: ...

You say
This was widely reported in the news media, and widely discussed in scientific journals, which back issues have never been made available online. The evidence is there in popular press such as the online back issues of National Geographic and Life. Unfortunately those few "climate scientists" (a term that is without actual meaning) who are still around are actively suppressing their own earlier opinions in the current AGW hysteria.

Let us discuss these scientific journal articles that you infallibly remember personally experiencing reading (but can't remember which journals or authors).


I was not reading scientific journals in 8th grade, nor were you, I'm sure. I was reading National Geographic, Scientific American, Popular Science, Astronomy, and Popular Electronics - and quite a few comic books, for that matter. Point being, the adult authors of those popular news articles were reading published papers, and were interviewing supposed "expert scientists". That does not change the facts - the topic of a man-induced ice age was all over all the media - even Arthur Godfrey, a popular radio host, was interviewing professors and weather experts on the air. Walter Cronkite, the "most trusted man in America" was doing online TV specials.

I firmly believe that at some future date, all you oh-so-earnest AGW believers will quietly slink away and not confirm the fact that you believed in a discredited theory. The problem is, your words on the internet are eternal, and will belie your claims.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 21:24:14

dissident wrote:
AgentR11 wrote:glacial / interglacials are cyclical
Its perfectly reasonable to suggest that ABSENT CO2 releases by humans over the past 10k yrs or so, that we'd be approaching time for glaciation.

People think such a force is of comparable magnitude to AGW. In reality it has long since been overwhelmed by the amount of CO2 that we've put in the atmosphere; and so, no, in the 1970s there was no scientific prediction of "global coolling" or a coming ice age.

These two sets of statements are entirely compatible.


The glaciation cycle is 100% due to CO2 levels falling below 400 ppmv and long term changes in the continental distribution. The orbital cycles of Earth have not undergone any transition over the last several billion years. The onset of the "ice age" 3.3 million years ago has everything to do with key geological events, namely the closing of the Panama channel and similar process in the region of Indonesia, and the long term decline of CO2 concentrations over the last 100+ million years.

Image

Once the atmospheric CO2 was below 400 ppmv, the orbital cycles coupled with the high latitude continental distribution resulted in a glaciation cycle. We have now kicked ourselves out of the ice age (the CO2-equivalent concentration right now is over 460 ppmv). But there are hysteresis effects (e.g. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets) that will take a while to work themselves out. And make no mistake, the current CO2 levels are self-sustaining at the very least since the ocean CO2 sink will be nullified before the anthropogenic emissions can fully work themselves out of the system.


Yes that CO2 decrease from 300 to 400 million yeas ago was when the Bahamas and Florida formed. Those are layers of limestone laid down by algae in the warm seas. That's where it all went - to form a chunk of limestone about as big as France.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby augjohnson » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 21:31:07

Kaiser Jeep wrote:
Unfortunately those few "climate scientists" (a term that is without actual meaning)


Well, since you only know the title that's used in the popular press, let me inform you of the scientific titles: Atmospheric Physicist and Climatologist; they do what is called Atmospheric Physics and Climatology or "Climate Science" in your terms. They are anything but "without actual meaning".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_physics

Atmospheric physics is the application of physics to the study of the atmosphere. Atmospheric physicists attempt to model Earth's atmosphere and the atmospheres of the other planets using fluid flow equations, chemical models, radiation balancing, and energy transfer processes in the atmosphere (as well as how these tie into other systems such as the oceans). In order to model weather systems, atmospheric physicists employ elements of scattering theory, wave propagation models, cloud physics, statistical mechanics and spatial statistics which are highly mathematical and related to physics. It has close links to meteorology and climatology and also covers the design and construction of instruments for studying the atmosphere and the interpretation of the data they provide, including remote sensing instruments. At the dawn of the space age and the introduction of sounding rockets, aeronomy became a subdiscipline concerning the upper layers of the atmosphere, where dissociation and ionization are important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1] This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences. Climatology now includes aspects of oceanography and biogeochemistry. Basic knowledge of climate can be used within shorter term weather forecasting using analog techniques such as the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Northern Annualar Mode (NAM) which is also known as the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Northern Pacific (NP) Index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). Climate models are used for a variety of purposes from study of the dynamics of the weather and climate system to projections of future climate.
augjohnson
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed 03 Jul 2013, 18:33:43

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 21:43:34

OK some somebody thinks they remember hearing something 40 years ago they should be in charge of the world why exactly?

It's like Benghazi - "Somebody might have said something except I can explain why it matters, but let's overthrow the government over a word, or maybe a syllable, or maybe just pause." And this shit just goes on for years.

I sounds almost exactly like Dustin Hoffman playing Tom Cruise's autistic brother in Rain Man and driving Tom nuts with the endless repetitive pointless conversation. But we cut Dustin Hoffman's character some slack, you know, because autism.

Image
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Satori » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 21:49:44

all I know is that as the earth continues to cool
these damn glaciers continue to melt ???
WTF ??? :?

Massive northeast Greenland glacier is rapidly melting

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150438.htm

I'm about an hour away from the coast now
looks like in a couple of decades I might be ownin' me one sweet little beach side cottage !!! :lol:

surf's up !!!
User avatar
Satori
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby augjohnson » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 22:01:30

On Cooling, I think that John Michael Greer spoke quite eloquently to in his post of June, 2014. The scientists themselves have created their own problem. I myself remember the pronouncements that people like Kaiser Jeep and others remember. However, I also understand how science works, as new data and the like are found, incorrect ideas are changed. This is something that is not well communicated to the general public. Just because there once was a widely written about idea that there was a "Luminiferous Æther", that Light, radio waves and the like traveled in, that doesn't mean that that idea is still valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-stories-of-our-grandchildren.html

That said, there were a few jarring moments, and one of them happened in the interval between my talk on dark ages and Dr. Mark Cochrane’s excellent presentation on the realities of climate change. In the Q&A session after my talk, in response to a question from the audience, I noted how the prestige of science among the general public had taken a beating due to the way that scientific opinions handed down to the public as proven fact so often get retracted after a decade or so, a habit that has caused many people outside the scientific community to treat all scientific pronouncements with skepticism. I cited several examples of this, and one of them was the way that popular works on climate science in the 1970s and 1980s routinely claimed that the world was on the brink of a new ice age.

Mention the existence of those claims nowadays and you’ll inevitably get denounced as a climate denialist. As my regular readers know, I’m nothing of the kind; I’ve written extensively about the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on the decades and centuries ahead, and my recently published science fiction novel Star’s Reach takes place in a 25th-century America ravaged by the impacts of climate change, in which oranges are grown in what’s now Illinois and Memphis has become a seaport. It’s become popular, for that matter, to insist that those claims of a new ice age never happened; I’d be happy, if anyone’s curious, to cite books published in the 1970s and 1980s for the general public, written by eminent scientists and respected science writers, that described the imminent ice age as a scientifically proven fact, since I have several on my bookshelf.

What I found interesting is that Dr. Cochrane, who is a more than usually careful scholar, jumped to the conclusion that my reference to these popular works of a bygone decade meant that I must be a climate denialist. I corrected him, and he accepted the correction gracefully. Yet permaculturist and peak oil author Albert Bates then proceeded to miss my point in exactly the same way in his blog post on the event. Bates was present at the discussion, and presumably heard the whole exchange. He’s neither a stupid man nor a malicious one; why, then, so embarrassing and so public a misstatement?

This isn’t a rhetorical question, either; it has an answer, and the answer follows from another of the most popular stories of our culture, the story that says that having the right answer is all you need to get people to listen to you. You’ll find narratives with that theme straight through the popular culture of the last two centuries and more, and it also pervades the rhetoric of science and of scientific history: once the protagonist figures out what’s really going on, whether it’s a murder mystery or the hunt for the molecular structure of DNA, everything falls promptly into place.

Now of course in the real world, things aren’t generally so easy. That was precisely the point I was trying to make in the discussion at the Age of Limits conference: however convincing the evidence for anthropogenic climate change may be to scientists, it’s failed to convince a great many people outside the scientific enterprise, and one of the things that’s driven that failure is the accelerating decline in the prestige of science in modern industrial society as a whole. Among the roots of that decline, in turn, is the dogmatic tone so often taken when scientists and science writers set out to communicate current scientific opinions to the general public—a tone that differs sharply, it bears remembering, from the far more tentative habits of communication practiced within the scientific community itself.

When climate scientists today insist that they’ve determined conclusively that we’ve entered an age of rising temperatures, I see no reason to doubt them—but they need to recall that many people still remember when writers and speakers with equally impressive scientific credentials insisted with equal vigor that it was just as certain that we’d entered an age of cooling temperatures. Scientists in the relevant fields know what’s behind the change, but people outside the scientific community don’t; all they see is a flip-flop, and since such flip-flops of scientific opinion have been fairly common in recent decades, members of the general public are by no means as quick as they once were to take scientists at their word. For that matter, when spokespeople for the scientific community insist to the general public nowadays that the flip-flop never took place—that, for example, no reputable scientist or science writer ever claimed to the general public that a new ice age was imminent—those spokespeople simply leave themselves and the scientific community wide open to accusations of bad faith.

We don’t talk about the political dimensions of scientific authority in the modern industrial world. That’s what lies behind the convenient and inaccurate narrative I mentioned earlier, the one that claims that all you have to do to convince people is speak the truth. Question that story, and you have to deal with the mixed motives and tangled cultural politics inseparable from science as a human activity, and above all, you have to discuss the much-vexed relationship between the scientific community and a general public that has become increasingly suspicious of the rhetoric of expertise in contemporary life.
augjohnson
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed 03 Jul 2013, 18:33:43

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests