I have only read the first few paragraphs, but know the rest of "Scientific reticence and sea level rise" will be fascinating. Jim Hansen bemoans the conservatism of science. Hmmm. I shall offer my thoughts this weekend, but wanted to point it out now so everyone can chime in as soon as possible.
The Island of Doubt
An irregular exploration of the struggle between the power of rational discourse and the scientific method on one hand, and the forces of superstition and dogma on the other.
Search this blog
Profile
James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Recent Posts
- In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd)
- Why can't American scientists be like this?
- Ejaculation, sinus relief and "two excellent reasons for publishing loopy papers"
- Global warming and whale song
- The Queen of Clean Energy
- All you ever wanted to know about the Global Carbon Budget but were afraid to ask
- Science is irrelevant, say Brit students
- Polar bears in scientific tug of war
- Sarah Palin on, you know, the molecules!
- New climate target: Negative emissions growth
Recent Comments
- Trin Tragula on In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd)
- paulm on In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd)
- Mike Haubrich, FCD on In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd)
- paulm on In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd)
- metapsyche on In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd)
- metapsyche on In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd)
- Elf Eye on In praise of planetariums (and Laser Floyd)
- Glendon Mellow on Why can't American scientists be like this?
- paulm on Why can't American scientists be like this?
- paulm on Why can't American scientists be like this?
for 9 July 2007
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Other Doubtful Blogs
- Panda's Thumb
- Real Climate
- George Monbiot
- Chet Raymo
- Ben Goldacre
- James Annan
- John Fleck
- Kristine Harley
- DeSmogBlog
- Nature Climate Feedback
- Jennifer Oullette
Inspiration
The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle
in the Dark,
by Carl Sagan
(A
review)
The Doubter's Companion:
by John Ralston Saul (Excerpts)
Skeptic Magazine: www.skeptic.com
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal: www.csicop.org
A poem by Yehuda Amichai:
The
Place
Where We Are Right
The Meaning of the
Island of Doubt
Author's site: cyamid.net
--- H. L. Mencken
By doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth.
--- Peter Abelard
Undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance.
-- Richard Dawkins
As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.
-- Michael Shermer.
« Alarmism? What alarmism? | Main | Hansen, melting ice and linear thinking »
Jim Hansen targets 'scientific reticence'
Category: philosophy
Posted on: March 30, 2007 6:55 AM, by James Hrynyshyn
Send this entry to:
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Comments
Interesting article. A couple of questions - first, when Hansen says the current melting of ice sheets is close to 1 mm of sea level rise annually, I don't see how he got this. Using his 150 cubic km/year, I get something closer to 0.4 mm/year (yes, I took landmass into account). And more importantly, while I agree that the ice melting will probably be nonlinear, doesn't it seem like a stretch to immediately propose an exponential model? It seemed to me like he was just pulling that scenario straight out of thin air.
Posted by: Tim | March 30, 2007 9:56 AM
Tim, I thought it was pretty well written. The difference between his 1mm/year and your .4mm/year was that he used 300km2/year (150 greenland and 150 West Antarctic) (ok .8 isn't 1). His exponential model he admits is very ad-hoc, and not supported only by extrapolation of very short time-series data. The case that the rates will very likely increase non-linearly is pretty strong, although what form it will take clearly is not yet apparent.
Posted by: bigTom | March 30, 2007 12:40 PM
If the extrapolation is, by Hansen's own reckoning, _ad hoc_, isn't reticence appropriate?
Posted by: bob koepp | March 30, 2007 2:34 PM