Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 589 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Not being ignored
[Read the article: Desperate times, desperate scientists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Solarpower wrote:
If the computer models being used to assess the future warming of the planet do not take into account the past 100 years of 'natural' as opposed to human induced chemical changes in the earth's atmosphere, how can we trust so implicitly the findings of those models? Surely you'd agree, there is a massive amount of data being ignored by these models.
So far as I am aware, there is no natural component being 'ignored". And I have spoken with dozens of climate and atmospheric scientists on this- as well as read hundreds of papers, e.g. published in Eos. What one treats are two levels: a natural component, and a "driven" or forcing component. The latter is the one associated with greenhouse gases, and in doing so -each forcing value of each gas (CO2, NH4, etc.) is factored in.
Too, the computer models take the forcing component into full account, but vary parameters with each run. Thus, in one run the forcing of CO2 may have prominence, while in another NH4, or water vapor. It is the analysis of ancient ice core samples which provides the data for these and the basis for a hypothetical run.
My complaint is there are too many now with scientific qualifications speaking out, and onluy adding to ocnfusion in the process.
What we do know (from the American Geophysical Union's position statements of 2003) is global warming IS human-engendered and reaching a critical threshold. It would be great if we had the time to discuss, debate and work toward the 99% confidence level in data, understanding, but we don't.
If we take too long and err, we are all for the "high jump". This is why I recommend using the precautionary principle and act as if the threat amounts to an emergency. If we are wrong by some margin, the results will be less catastrophic than if we don't.
We only suffer some economic dislocation and rationing etc. as opposed to species extinction.
-
Akasofu redux
[Read the article: Desperate times, desperate scientists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Solarpower wrote:
So what do you think Akasofu was referring to when he claims they “have not examined the natural component?” I have a feeling he is a respectable scientist, although not specialising in this field, as you pointed out. I don’t think he would make wild claims, or do you think otherwise?
Here's what I DO know about Syun, having worked with him. He enjoys being the "devil's advocate" and the neighborhood iconoclast. He enjoys popping what he regards as bubbles for any and every "consensus" - and asking whether a highly unusual, exotic and contrarian model can't be used in it place. This is his nature. It doesn't mean he is making "wild claims" only that he likes to play the margins and be the "rebel".
An illustration helps. At the time I was at the GI in 1985-86 I was advancing earlier published research on how solar flares originate, which based on the well-established magnetic shearing model - with force-free fields undergoing shearing and storing magnetic free energy.
The underlying governing equation is: curl B = alpha (B)
where B is the magnetic induction and "alpha" is what we call the force free parameter.
To make a long story short, I gave a seminar on my work and further reearch indicators. Syun, sitting in the front row, nitpicked apart all sorts of aspects - and insisted the "driven" type flare model can't work (this, despite a 99% consensus amongst solar physicists) and should be replaced with an "unloading" type model of the type he'd earlier applied to magnetic substorms on Earth.
Of couse, I smiled and tried to tolerate his interruptions as best I could, but he got on my nerves and made the seminar a "one man show" of iconoclasm - his. It was nearly impossible to get a word in edge wise, and to show him in detail why he was precipitous, and that vast droves of data and imagery supported the magnetic storage model - not his "dynamo" a la aurorae on Earth. (After all, there is no "neutral wind" observed on the Sun, nor any BV-, S-potentials of the type that can be invoked for substorms)
Yes, there are field-aligned currents, but that is about wheere the similarities end.
Anyway, the gist of it is that Syun got to be the audacious "star" of the seminar simply by disrupting it and using it as a basis to advertise for his own pet views, based on external double layers and such.
That experience betrayed more about the nature of the man than his Oriental, sphinx-like demeanor may otherwise have wanted.
Now, so I am not misunderstood, I do not claim or insist Akasofu has no "right" to talk about whatever he so desires, but unless one understands his nature, and where he is coming from, one will tend to assign way too much gravitas to what he claims. I don't. You could say the reason is that I "been there, done that".
The following year I left the GI, as I could well see the support for my work didn't exist, not so long as Syun (then GI Director) was in command.
I will get back to you later on your other issues and questions, assuming the thread is still open.