Beware of scientists bearing information.....

[Dr Mordrid]

Wonderfull, but not really a suprise.

A study, funded by the National Institutes of Health and released this summer, showed that fully 33 percent of scientists admitted to engaging in at least one of 10 behaviors considered unethical. These range from adjusting research data to outright changing the conclusions of studies.

Dr. Mordrid

[Jessterw]

Wonder how many lied and, in-turn, altered the outcome of this study

[Dr Mordrid]

IMO the number is more like 50%, with another 50% of scientists rejecting the good work of others because of it violating the conventional wisdom.

Ex: it took decades for plate tektonics to be accepted in spite of a huge body of evidence supporting it.

This is the downside of putting too much faith in "peer review".

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

Well.. one would think they would be more circumspect since so many instances of conventional thought being proven wrong exist. Look how many now-geniuses are victims of their peers being unwilling to consider fresh views.

[Marshmallowman]

like global warming? or the ozone layer?

[KvHagedorn]

Thank God someone payed some attention to those.

[Brian Ellis]

Scientists are only human and are subject to the same frailties as everyone else. Many cases (possibly the majority) of ethics problems are related to funding. If Exxon-Mobil or BP are funding a 10 million research project, the scientists are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. No matter how negative a finding, it will be carefully word-smithed to bring out only the positive aspects. Of course, there are a few mavericks who will stake their reputation on a scam (e.g., cold fusion).

One of the biggest problems in applied (as opposed to pure) research is obtaining reliable and holistic data. It is too easy to brush aside a data set that doesn't fit in with the others, claiming empirical errors.

Many years ago, I was involved in reviewing a scientist's developed test method for a specific application. I found 28 different possible sources of error that had not been considered. Discussions with said scientist (who was not trying to pull wool over anyone's eyes) included complete agreement, but practical considerations prevailed and the test method was actually used in a military specification, even though it was worthless from a practical point of view. Its application was like trying to calibrate a thermometer by sticking your finger in water. This was not the scientist's fault: it was the military's fault, feeling they had to have some form of yardstick for a process that could be used by ordinary people. I published a "whistle-blow" about the stupidity of it in one of my books but, believe it or not, this is still being discussed 36 years later and relics of the original mil-spec still exist in standards. Was the scientist concerned unethical? No, he publicly admitted the method was weak, as it was published, and he was pressured by the military to practise imperfect science.

In the last two decades, I've been heavily involved in both ozone depletion and climate change issues (as Marshmallowman raises them). In both cases, the science was not researched by individuals or small teams but by teams of over a hundred atmospheric scientists from all over the world. Their research funding is from many sources as many national and international organisations, some of them conflicting, are involved. There is a constant automatic peer reviewing between them (as well as independent peer reviews before publication of findings). If there is disagreement on an issue, then both or all points of view are published. If calculation methods give significantly different answers, then the result is published as a range of values. This method is slow, cumbersome and inefficient and often suffers from funding problems (e.g., some calculations require months of supercomputer time), but I do believe it is fundamentally honest and ethical, within human error. When you have 100-odd scientist-authors giving their caveat to a publication, with another 50 scientists as peer-reviewers, you can be pretty sure that the results of the reports have not been distorted and represent today's best available science derived from available data. The point I'm making is that there are no vested interests able to influence the findings.

[Dr Mordrid]

BUT with global warming what still isn't clear is;

1. the net effect. Will it moderate overall temps, exascerbate the extremes or just make for sunny days in the US midwest & Siberia in February?

2. the relative contribution of man vs. cyclical changes in the earths axis tiilt, solar output, the sunspot cycle, cloud reflectivity, volcanic outgassing etc. Our net contribution may well just be the proverbial fart in a windstorm we have no control over.

Note that the hottest days of the 20th century were in 1936, not the latter portions of the century when GW should have been the dominant feature according to the "conventional wisdom" of today.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

Don't know where your 2nd question went to?

I know any answer I give won't satisfy you.

Firstly, "global warming" is rarely used in scientific circles. "Climate change" is the preferred term. This is because the manifestation on local weather in any place may not be a warming and cooling is forecast for some places. The scientific modelling includes all the natural variables you mention, and many more. The MEAN temperature of thousands recorded by standardised weather stations across the world has increased by ~0.8°C over the past 100 or so years. The following diagram shows the annual variations, those modelled according to cyclic and acyclic natural variations, such as you mention, those modelled according to greenhouse gas concentrations across the globe and those combining the two. As you can see, the curve fit is actually quite good.
.
I agree that there are still some unknown variables, but the evidence is there and is being refined further, each year. Read the IPCC scientific reports (www.ipcc.ch) for more details.

The temperature in Michigan may have been abnormally high in the 1930s, but Michigan is hardly the world and you can see from the above curves that, globally, this was not the case. In fact the '40s were warmer than the '30s, but recent years have been much warmer again.

Just to show another local example, here is the Cyprus curve:

The red curve is the annual mean from 5 weather stations on the island and you can see it follows the same general trend as the red curves in the previous graphs, although the excursion is nearer 1°C than 0.8°C. The blue curve is the 5-year moving average. I'm quite sure that you would see something quite similar for Michigan, even if there is a blip in the 1930s.

The problem with the public concept of climate change is that the average Joe cannot distinguish between climate and weather. Partly because of journalistic reporting of global warming, he expects his home patch to be sweltering every summer and less snow and ice in winter. However, the climate in his patch and even microclimates may very well have opposite effects.

OK, the overall effects are often weather-linked, rather than climate. It can take just a single year of drought to advance desertification in a given region by several km. Several years on the trot can be devastating. It may be that, in that one place, the annual rains gave it a miss by freak weather which may or may not be linked to climate change. It is therefore almost impossible to forecast the climate in Romulus with any accuracy several years in advance (dammit, you'd be lucky to get a 5-day weather forecast with better than 75% accuracy).

What we do know is that increasing surface ocean temperatures are driving the climate to more and greater extremes, such as hurricanes (which develop only when passing over water at about 27°C or more), tornadoes and blizzards. However, what is less well-known is that vegetation is migrating in many regions. I know some parts of the Swiss Alps quite well, over 35 years residence there. I've seen the tree line in some places move upwards and this is not a subjective observation but is confirmed by photos. (This is nothing to do with glacier-retreat, as I'm thinking, in particular, of several footpaths which used to be at the top of the tree line and are no longer, having advanced by an estimated 30-50 m in altitude in 30-odd years. I've also noticed that marmots have advanced upwards, as well.) Of course, it may well be that the opposite has happened in some places.

Apart from more extreme weather, I would guess we'll see changing biotopes over large regions (cf. permafrost melt-down) within a few decades. I forecast that hurricanes, over a longer season, may possibly hit farther north, Virginia, mebbe even NJ, who knows? Nor do I know whether the Atlantic conveyor will sink at lower latitudes than today; if it does, N. Europe may become as cold as Labrador. I'll certainly not chance my arm any further than that.

But, believe me, I'm convinced that anthropogenic emissions of carbon gases and fluorocarbons are having an effect. Carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are causing increases of about 5 billion tonnes (yes, 5E9 tonnes) of carbon, mostly from over 12 billion tonnes of CO2, than man is pumping into the air each year. You can't tell me we can do that indefinitely without something happening.

[KvHagedorn]

Firstly, "global warming" is rarely used in scientific circles. "Climate change" is the preferred term. This is because the manifestation on local weather in any place may not be a warming and cooling is forecast for some places.

Actually, no. "Climate change" is an engineered term thought up by think tanks to make the idea of global warming more palatable to the masses of lemmings who vote. Frontline did a show on these people.. they go to incredible lengths to make commercials and political speeches more manipulative, choosing verbiage based upon how people react emotionally to certain words and phrases.

Whatever the local effects, the net effect is a warming of global temperatures. I agree we are somewhat at fault here in this. There are just too many people on the planet, and WAY too many for all to live the lifestyle of Western cultures. Oh well, when Yellowstone erupts, it will kill most of us off and cool down the temps pretty significantly. On balance, that's probably a good thing.

[Dr Mordrid]

Given your anticipation can I assume you're moving to the area so as to make your "contribution" to the ELE?

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

I try to minimise my contribution (solar water heating, reducing shopping trips to a minimum and as local as possible, minimal use of heating and aircon) within reason. I don't necessarily forecast extinction, so much as a great degree of unpleasantness and expense.

However, I did not mention the main motivation for reducing fossil fuel consumption: health care costs. The concomitant pollution from combusting fossil fuels is causing massive increases in death (est. 3,000,000/year globally according to the WHO) from fossil fuel pollution-related diseases. Worse, the unlucky ones (10-100 times as many) who don't die but who are condemned to living with cancers, emphysema, asthma and, above all, reduction of immuno-responses and resultant infections (non-exhaustive list). This is crippling the health-care systems of the developed and developing world alike, whether the system is oriented by state, private or a mixture. You may like paying through the nose for medical insurance premiums: I don't.

By coincidence, two days ago, I responded to a nuclear neinsager in a specialised forum:

To put the church back to the middle of the village, please allow me to re-state my credo for the nth time. I believe that carbon emissions are the current greatest threat to mankind and this planet. They must be reduced as drastically and as rapidly as possible. For this, I foresee a four-pronged approach:
1. Conservation: using low-consumption appliances, cars etc. to the maximum possible, maximal recycling of all resources, implementation of efficient electrical mass transport schemes for persons and merchandise at both urban and exurban (inter-city) levels
2. Fixed renewables: defined as renewables that can run 24/7/50 (2 weeks for maintenance): generation and hot water from the incineration of household garbage, HE where feasible (not much scope left in most parts of the world), but only if there are no major environmental impacts (no 3-Gorges, for instance), some biomass (limited by inroads to food production)
3. Variable renewables: wind, solar, tide, waves. Whichever, where feasible and economically viable. I happen to live in the most solar-oriented country of the world, with ~95% of habitations having solar hot water heating, so I know what it can do. However, because of its variability, this category is limited for electricity generation to ~20% of the peak demand; above that, grid instability is too dangerous.
4. Nuclear: this must be sized to satisfy peak demand (when no sun, no wind etc.) and cranked down to actually, at any given moment, provide the power that the other systems cannot.

I know of no other formula that will reduce carbon emissions significantly without forcing the world back to a lower standard of life. At the same time, it will reduce our dependence on oil, coal or, worse, natural gas and allow the remaining reserves to be used sensibly so that our great-great-grandchildren can still profit from them.

Can you pick any real holes (based on science and technology and not on perceived emotional responses) in this credo?

[KvHagedorn]

What about radioactivity from nuclear tests, chernobyl, and satellite reentries? Would you not say this has caused many of the increased cancers etc. you cite?

[Brian Ellis]

Relatively few deaths. The nuclear tests, possibly some, but not any number even approaching 3,000,000 per year from fossil fuels (including massive amounts of radionuclides from coal).

Chernobyl, hardly greater than the background.

The definitive numbers compiled in the Chernobyl Forum report are sobering: the 50 emergency rescue workers who died from acute radiation syndrome and related illnesses; the 4000 children and adolescents who contracted thyroid cancer — 9 of whom also died

Quoted from Dr el Baradei at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/State...p2005n008.html
summarising the findings of the Chernobyl forum, 6 September 2005.

With these objectives in mind, the IAEA, in cooperation with FAO, UNDP, UNEP, UN-OCHA, UNSCEAR, WHO and The World Bank, as well as the competent authorities of Belarus, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, established the Chernobyl Forum in 2003. The mission of the Forum is — through a series of managerial, expert and public meetings — to generate “authoritative consensual statements” on the environmental consequences and health effects attributable to radiation exposure arising from the accident. The Forum was created as a contribution to the United Nations’ ten years strategy for Chernobyl, launched in 2002 with the publication of Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident – A Strategy for Recovery.

Since 2003, two expert groups — “Environment”, coordinated by the IAEA, and “Health”, coordinated by WHO — have presented reports for the Forum’s consideration. In order to give wide publicity to the Forum’s findings and recommendations, and to inform governments, the international scientific community and the general public, the Chernobyl Forum is now organizing, through the IAEA, an International Conference entitled “Chernobyl: Looking Back to Go Forwards”, to be held in Vienna on 6 and 7 September 2005. The Forum also aims to disseminate its findings widely through UN organizations and the mass media.

59 deaths to date is not exactly a hecatomb, is it? Even if you add the ~4,000 kids with thyroid cancer (mostly with a life expectancy of several decades, with treatment), it is still only 0.13% total of those who die ANNUALLY from fossil fuel pollution and 0.003% over a 40-year period, representing the average life expectancy of the Chernobyl victims. I suggest you read the full Chernobyl Forum Report before you cite emotional responses, rather than scientific ones.

As for deaths due to satellite re-entries, you have got me dumbfounded there. Please cite scientific data so that I can study it, because this is something totally new to my ken. I cannot think of any mechanism causing death (short of re-entering pieces of ironmongery physically falling on someone, of course). Perhaps you are meaning the Soviet devices that were powered by minute nuclear reactors (the US used similar devices for many space applications). These reactors are so small that the amount of radionuclides is negligible. The Cosmos that fell in Canada contained about 30 kg of partially enriched uranium, as I remember, most of which fell in particular form over vast regions of Canada. AFAIK, no deaths resulted,

I fear you may be one of these people who equate the word nuclear with enormously large numbers of deaths, possibly as an emotional aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Properly handled, nuclear power is probably the safest major power source in the world (and I'm not counting nuclear weaponry which, by definition, is designed to kill and can never be properly handled). Certainly, the civil use of nuclear power has killed far fewer persons per TWh generated than any other major (and probably minor) form of electricity generation over the last 50 years - and this includes the results of accidents, including Chernobyl.

[KvHagedorn]

Just wanted to bring it into the discussion. Haven't studied the matter as closely as you, obviously, but reading about initial effects of testing and how ignorant we all were about it at the time would worry anyone.