Translating scientific papers...

It is intuitively obvious to even the casual observer = We have no idea why this happened, but it did

 

"Could, should, would , may likely ."
Means we're guessing and our study is as good as your guess.
(May only apply to climate science)

 

As in ,
Warmer temperature COULD cause more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere ,causing more extreme weather.
But its BS because water vapor never increased.It decreased but the meme is still global warming caused extreme weather.

 

Graduate students have been laughing at these 'translations' since the 1980s at least. I was prepared to claim that these phrases are rare in published research, but it turns out they are not rare.

(use quotation marks in google scholar)

I would still like to claim that such language is largely restricted to journals in fields like sociology, but this may not be the case. One wold have to do a lot more legwork.

I saved my legwork for the matter of atmospheric water vapor. Those wishing to remain uninformed about atmospheric water vapor trends should not read any of the following:

Brown PJ DeGaetano AT. 2013. Trends in U.S. Surface Humidity, 1930–2010. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol. 52: 147–163. doi: 10.1175/JAMC-D-12-035.1

Durre I Williams Jr. CN Yin XG Vose1 RS. 2009. Radiosonde-based trends in precipitable water over the Northern Hemisphere: An update. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 114(D5): D05112. DOI: 10.1029/2008JD010989

Isaac V Van Wijngaarden WA. 2012. Surface water vapor pressure and temperature trends in North America during 1948–2010. Journal of Climate 25: 3599-3609. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1

Keihm S et al. 2009. Ocean water vapor and cloud liquid water trends from 1992 to 2005 TOPEX Microwave Radiometer data. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: D18101. doi:10.1029/2009JD012145, 2009

McCarthy MP Thorne PW Titchner HA. 2009. An analysis of tropospheric humidity trends from radiosondes. Journal of Climate 22: 5820-58938. DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2879.1

Santer BD et al. 2007. Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. PNAS 104: 15248–15253. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702872104

Willett KM et al. 2007. Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence. Nature 449: 710-712. doi:10.1038/nature06207

 

Heres an interesting phrase that deserves interpretation.
"NOT ROBUST" in Climate science
means we lied in our study .
Or we are unable to defend our scientific method used to formulate our conclusions .
But dont let that get in the way of the media citing our study.

“[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
11,000-year climate study’s 20th-century claim is groundless | Financial Post

 

I much appreciate mojo's role in keeping us up to date on media-opinion posts. Reading the literature is hard. If people choose not to read about about water vapor (etc.), that's fine by me, but they might not then present themselves as authorities on the topics.

There is a task here, and it seems not to have been made simpler or clearer when Marcott (or Mann) join disparate paleotemperature proxies. They are attacked in media opinion, even if not in scientific journals. But that does not address a matter of concern: are we, collectively, changing the earth's atmosphere in a way that will harm us?

If we are sure of no large harm, then by all means keep burning fossil C faster. If we are not sure , then tone that down a bit and look to science for better knowledge. The latter seems to resemble what we have already done in other areas of air and water pollution.

I don't much care if we have equaled or blown through medieval T. 55 million years ago, T was clearly unfavorable to the current human enterprise*. It would be a grave mistake (possibly our last) to repeat that scenario. But, who has the knowledge and who would you trust? These are not trivial questions.

*for example, there was no polar ice and sea level was concomitantly much higher. I mean like 'Al Gore' higher.

 

I like the switch from "global warming" to "climate change". It just goes along with the dumbing down of society and "everyone is a winner" attitude so prevalent in grade school. No matter what you believe now, you're right!

 

As a scientist... I will admit to have used one of these in publications. Some of them are spot on.

 

Those wishing to remain uninformed about saying climate change instead of warming won't want to read the Frank Luntz memo

Political Strategy - Politics, Strategies, Tactics, News and Opinion

Perhaps the first use of CC term was Gilbert Plass in 1956. Personally I prefer CC simply because it is more inclusive in terms of the hydrologic cycle. It would not seem to include oceanic pH reductions, so there is probably room for an even better term. Who knows what I'd be accused of were I to suggest one though.

 

Just a gentle reminder that this is a joke thread, NOT political debate.

 

OK, jokes then. Available here and elsewhere:

How a plan becomes policy

In the beginning was the plan.
And then came the assumptions.
And the assumptions were without form.
And the plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke among themselves saying,
"It is a crock of shit and it stinketh."
And the workers went unto their supervisors and said,
"It is a pail of dung and none may abide the odor thereof."

And the supervisor went unto their managers and said,
"It is a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the managers went unto their directors, saying,
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."

And the directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another,
"It contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong."
And the directors went unto the vice presidents, saying unto them,
"It promotes growth and is very powerful."
And the vice presidents went unto the president, saying unto him,
"The new plan will promote the growth and vigor of the company, with powerful effects."
And the president looked upon the plan and saw that it was good.

And the plan became policy.
This is how shit happens.

 

One of my advisors in grad school used to use the “correct within an order of magnitude” in every presentation he gave.