The following article was written by Jason Sents. Please visit his blog for more information. I have asked that he write as a guest on my blog. If you would like to be a guest on my blog, please contact me via Facebook. My account can be accessed by clicking on the badge, located on the bottom and to the right. Thank you.
Thursday June 24, 2010
Is catastrophic Global Warming happening? Is everything normal? Is it man-made? Is it naturally occurring? These are the common questions you hear moments before the "paid for" Democrat and the "shill for Big Oil" Republican start bickering worse than Bob Beckel after someone steals his jelly doughnut.
There is one very simple, fundamental scientific oversight being made in the whole discussion. That is actually a difficult sentence to find myself writing. The study of ancient climates and long-term global climate change [Paleoclimatology] is literally in it's infancy. How could such a young field of study have completely lost the basic principles of science so soon? Regardless, let's keep it super-simple and examine an important detail that consistently falls by the wayside during almost every discussion on the matter of climate change. That detail is called “measurement precision”.
Consider the mercury thermometer. Yes, the kind that has some of you old timers squealing like a young Ned Beatty in Deliverance. See those little tick marks up the side of the glass along the column of silver or red liquid? Those are called graduations. They denote the referenced and calibrated temperature to the level of the red fluid rising up the column from the bulb. Basic principles here. A heated liquid expands, and in this case rises up into the column. You read the closest graduation to the top of the liquid and note the temperature.
Modern thermometers have little electronic circuits in them that can read to calibrated measurement precision 1/10th a degree [or better]. These are called "digital thermometers". Oooooo.... Sounds fancy and complex like "computer models". If it sounds as fancy like a computer model it must be true! In fact, I've used digital thermometers to measure the temperature of groundwater 400 feet below the ground surface and they report in 1/100th of a degree C. The issue here is not one of analog versus digital thermometers. Suffice it to say that others have tested that, and continue to test it. Then they test again, and again, and again... Then they give all their gear to someone else and they test, test, test, and come up with reproducible results. That repetitive process is known as the scientific method.
Regardless of what the true answer is, it is clearly evident that a discrepancy exists. That in and of itself should raise the red flag of skepticism and critical thought. Being skeptical and thinking critically is a hallmark of great science. The real issue is at some point in the not so distant past, thermometers only had a measurement precision of 1 whole degree. Said another way, it was either 70, 71, or 72°C. There were no 71.46°Cs like some digital thermometric technologies used today.
So the next time you are having any kind of debate with an agenda-driven, ignorant political hack and they blurt out, “Well the temperature of the planet has warmed a half a degree Celsius in the last 100 years!” The first thing out of your mouth should be, “What kind of thermometers were used 100 years ago, and what kind are used today? Because unless they had the exact same measurement precision, that would be comparing apples and oranges.” You'll probably observe them begin shaking like a deranged Borg drone disconnected from the Collective Hive Mind.
The reason it is vital to never forget basic principles like these is that citizens and governmental bodies base public policy decisions on the final results. If a simple error is introduced at the beginning of the scientific process, that error will likely be carried through to the public policy stage. If the governmental bodies have an agenda, however, they will likely use the scientific method as a shield behind which they simply inject manufactured errors to change the final results which, in turn, support their public policy agenda. When all else fails, fall back to the position of basic principles. They act as an antiseptic to dangerous political agendas and error-filled science. Finally, it is for these reasons we as scientists must think critically, remain emotionally neutral, and always maintain the highest standards for scientific ethics. As Galileo Galilei wrote, 'In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.'
Jason Sents is an Environmental Geologist, Mathematical Computer Modeler, and Quaternary Paleoclimatology Researcher. He is a Member of the Association of Engineering & Environmental Geologists – Carolinas Chapter, and he is a Founding Member of Oath Keepers. Visit his new blog where he writes about geology topics and hosts a gallery of his photography at http://geolojay.com/
0 comments:
Post a Comment