Clearly there is a balance to strike between doom - ridden messages and «bright - side» opportunities, and
uncertainties around the science and the expected effects of climate change must be factored in too.
Not exact matches
That representation matches the public discourse
around global warming, in which previous studies have shown that media characterize climate change as unsettled
science with high levels of scientific
uncertainty.
I've written in the past about other issues related to setting a numerical limit for climate dangers given both the enduring
uncertainty around the most important climate change questions and the big body of
science pointing to a gradient of risks rising with temperature.
If Dr Curry's scientific position is «there is a considerable amount of
uncertainty, therefore we should at least be able to draw some boundaries
around them before pushing for a consensus on certainty» (I hope my paraphrase is close to the mark), then advocating for a change in the process of conducting climate
science follows logically.
I don't know about all of you, but I do find that the
uncertainty around e.g. the various issues related to ocean heat content or issues regarding connecting the Argo float network to other data networks is SO much better covered in Judith's bizarre and uniquely repetitive mischaracterizations of other scientists» comments, than by the published
science and its critical review.
It appears to me the reason the attitudes
around climate
science is the way it is, is BECAUSE OF THE
UNCERTAINTY.
The project received funding from the Research Council of Norway's NORKLIMA programme.The researchers succeeded in reducing
uncertainty around the climatic effects of feedback mechanisms, and their findings indicate a lowered estimate of probable global temperature increase as a result of human - induced emissions of greenhouse gases.The project researchers were able to carry out their calculations thanks to the free use of the high - performance computing facility in Oslo under the Norwegian Metacenter for Computational
Science (Notur).
I fault higher education for not making sure that ethics is integrated into
science teaching particularly
around the issues of
uncertainty.
CB: The tightening of the reins of
uncertainty around climate sensitivity is often hailed as one of the priorities for climate
science.
If anything, what this thread highlights is the degree to which there is
uncertainty in the
science around global warming.
Another is to stress that
uncertainty is always part of
science, but that those certainties hover
around a certain core.
It is wrong
science for many reasons and I think you will find that Judith argues
uncertainty for cause — not just as a talisman to wave
around.
After having read the many comments here, I see that the discussion is «getting wrapped
around the axle» on the definition of a «black swan», rather than staying on the main topic of how
uncertainties and potential major outliers in our knowledge of climate
science should affect our conclusions of what is likely to be the human impact on climate and what should be done about it.
One may suppose that
uncertainty is better than certain disaster, so perhaps the «unsettled
science»
around future water supplies may be seen as good news.