Oh yeah, AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming, if you didn't know already.
I would appreciate your opinions on whether I should become involved, or stay the hell away from it.
- I have a good mathematics and statistics background, and did some relevant modeling of physical processes (hydrology) in grad school, but have no background in climate science.
- I really haven't been following the AGW debate past some casual reading, but not being caught up in the old arguments might be a good thing.
- I believe the scientific reports and news that AGW is real. I do have a some of skeptical thoughts about the extent of climate change the models predict, but even a small change is a valid cause for serious concern. I am concerned.
- I think this might actually be a valid and useful educational effort, and I'm pretty sure I could make some good contributions.
- I need another blog to write for like I need another hole in my head. ;-)
One friend already commented to me ...
"Not to discourage you from having fun, but there are a plethora of people stepping into the debate without sufficient preparation."
Another, who is self-described as very conservative, encourages me to go for it.
[Images Wikipedia, downloaded 12/12/2009]
I suggest focusing your efforts on something more useful. I'm not entirely sure an OpenSource approach will add anything but a lot of yelling and screaming that would ultimately do little more than add a minor footnote to [oh, I can't cut and paste into this box... odd] well never mind, just look up "Hockey Stick" in Wikipedia and make sure you know what you are getting into.
ReplyDeletean OpenSource effort invites, openly, others to get involved. Developing modelling software may be appropriate if you have the core skills available, and collecting some kind of data, such as historical ice-out data or historical sea-ice and glaical data would be fun and useful. But a specific modeling poject in an open source setting would be a mess.
I don't know your potential colleague, but going in on an "opensource" project with a AGW denialist is a little like, sorry if this sounds harsh, setting up an accounting firm with some guy with a conviction for embezzlement on his record. Not recommended. Denialists are not scientists or interested in science, but they are interested in playing tricks on scientists. Bewere. In fact, run away.
I would advise against getting into any GCM modelling efforts, as well. The odds of meaningfully coming up with either more or less appropriate variables than the current GCMs is vanishingly small. I wouldn't worry at ALL about the GCMs, and concentrate merely on how the climate histories have been assembled and massaged.
ReplyDeleteI think that taking an objective look at the statistical steps used and applying some common sense and rigor, with an open mind of course, would be useful. Personally, I don't know a Principal Component from a hole in the ground, nor a Hamming from a Butterworth filter... so though I have a great interest in science and no interest in playing tricks on scientists, I think I'd fall into Greg's "Denialist" camp due to my lack of credintials.
I'd advise against dipping a toe any further if your going in position is to either prove or disprove AGW. Honest skepticism and critical thinking (a la Mrs. Maxfield), though, would seem like a good starting point, though, and the data should drive the conclusion. It seems odd to me (and perhaps could characterize me as a tobacco-industry-like troll) to NOT subject the data to a good, multi-angle going over before committing lots of energy towards the goal towards which it (Al Gore's version of AGW) is whipping us.
Before making a decision I'd steer clear of wikipedia for anything but definitions, and if you want to see the battlefield you're dipping your toe into, skim www.climateaudit.org and www.realclimate.org as these are the real battlegrounds (McIntyre and Gavin/Mann, respectively). Watts and the Pielke's have good sites, too. There IS value in the comments, but that's a deep hole with lots of dross in it... skim the articles and dig where you have to scratch your head (if you search realclimate for "MDC" you can see where I've been coming from on this over the last few years [there are few comments by some OTHER MDC, but you'll pick out mine as the ones that aren't very technical]). This isn't, after all, rocket science...
If it's reputation, well... I wouldn't know Johny Cochran's name if he hadn't defended OJ. Just sayin' ;)
P.S. Eugenics had the science settled, too, but I notice we don't sterilize blacks or retards anymore... again, just sayin'.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/comment-page-5/#comment-32924
ReplyDeleteThis is probably the high-point of my realclimate discussions... captures most of the themes, etc. Perhaps not my best prose, but hey. I'm the upper case MDC, not the lower case one, btw.
Sorry for intruding again... last one, honest. Here is an excellent discussion of the problems in that same thread as above (different page), by a "matt" that is not me. He is more generous than I, but I think his questions and observations are dead on. I'd LOVE to hear how they are not.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/comment-page-6/#comment-33244
I've thought for a while now that AGW is just too massive and intimidating a concept for most people to wrap their minds around, much less rally behind. It may help if researchers get into the habit of addressing the issue in smaller terms whenever they discuss AGW with the public. Hammer us with more easily digestible data, such as, "The world has X% of the forested area it did in 1900, CO2 is Y% greater, Z-million tons of fossil fuels are being consumed worldwide each day, there's an enormous island of garbage in the Pacific gyre, and the earth's average temperature rose 2 degrees in however many years."
ReplyDeleteContext! It makes AGW seem less like a conspiracy theory. I wish I were presented with context each time AGW were brought up in the news. It can be different statistics each time. They should mix it up a bit; keep us on our toes.
Now, as to whether you should participate in the open source project... I don't know. I think I just wanted to rant about context. Sorry, I guess I was less helpful than I'd first intended.
@ Greg: I share your concerns about an open source analysis. The suggestions seems to come from people who write computer code for a living. It's a good idea in that context, but the coding paradigm is a poor fit to the research process.
ReplyDelete@ MDC: Thanks for the links, and all your input (here and FB).
@ Awesome Cloud & Family: Actually, what you wrote is very helpful. It reminds me that a big part of this is not the analysis itself, but rather explaining the meaning and strength of complex findings in terms that people can understand. Greg and Matt are correct that I should stay out of the modeling, but explaining results is something I do all the time.
That seems to give me the handle I need, to approach it with the intent of explaining what is already out there, working to clean up the mess rather than adding to it. Thank you gentlemen - this has been helpful.
Further comments are still welcome, of course.
What may be rewarding for you, if you do participate, is being able to apply your expertise in an area full of interesting controversy. "Climategate" has touched on my field only briefly, but that lingering caress has allowed me to refine my opinion in ways that I consider valuable.
ReplyDeleteIf you are skeptical about the positions of certain people, perhaps it will be satisfying to apply some intellectual rigor to their new effort. Whether they're right or wrong, the more scientific this new project is, the better.
The best peer review is that accomplished by skeptics. If they can't find anything objectively wrong with the scientific consensus it will be valuable work.
Stay away! It doesn't matter what your mathematical or statistical background. This debate has moved outside the realms of science and is ideologically driven. Of course, it never hurts to have another voice out there promoting good science, but if you prefer to keep your sanity....
ReplyDeleteOTOH, if sanity has left the building a long time ago, then jump right on in.
Get involved in anything that involves destroying the earth or anything unethical, other than that don't do it.
ReplyDeleteHello talking tomato person.
ReplyDeleteIf I were you I wouldn't hesitate to question the scientific consensus on global warming. Although global warming is occurring (logical consequence of the sun getting bigger), chances are there's quite a bit of fluff in the scientific literature. After all, it's not that hard to prove stuff, yet scientists publish reams and reams of books and articles. There's something fish-like going on here, wouldn't you say?
Cheers as always,
NS
Just checking back in to see if you've squandered any of the holidays on this Quixotic effort (worthy though I feel it to be). I concur wholeheartedly with Awesomecloud and Family that context is the real key. Were context applied in most public statements, it'd be pretty hard to get anybody upset about anything.
ReplyDeleteSadly. I have frivolously spent my time on family, friends, and some much needed relaxation (mostly, there was one nagging bit of work).
ReplyDeleteI'm have not heard of any progress from the person working on getting the software to run, but he may have taken a holiday hiatus as well. I am considering a couple of opinion articles, but there are enough opinions out there already that I don't consider that to be much of a contribution.
I strongly suspect that, with Copenhagen in the rear-view mirror (generating nothing of significance and declared a victory), that this will drift below most folk's attention threshold until and if Cap and Trade/Tax resurrects itself later this year... When (not if) Phil Jones gets sacked, it will generate nary a peep in the news and life will pretty much go on as before... Al Gore will continue to make mega-bucks selling indulgences and bringing snow to wherever and whenever he speaks, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I'd not invest too much energy into this unless you are truly interested and/or care about the scientific method ;)