1. Climate scientists do write about this in papers. Reducing uncertainty of past observations is an important area of climate research, but when the past is unknown (or has large error bars) because no one was able to measure it, it's unknown (or continues to have large error bars). But still, they try.
Here's one example:
Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity, Bjorn Stevens, Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony & Mark J. Webb, Earth's Future (2016)
2. There are lots of areas of climate with major uncertainty but rule #2 of climate scientists *in media communications* is not to mention major uncertainty. Rule #1 *in media communications* is not to mention good news.
The process that allocates funds for research is far from rational, but a "scandal", I don't think so.
I have known or known of quite a number of scientists specializing in atmospheric chemistry, which takes them to aerosols. The one I know best has won major awards for that work; it has not been a path to obscurity.
What is notable, for that scientist among others, is that their research over time produces results that are taken as strengthening or reducing the case for climate alarm. They have reported that their treatment by that crowd changes incredibly based on what their latest result is thought to imply.
The reality is that no one result in that field can be definitive and, as you say, you would need to pour buckets of money into it to make progress more quickly. Which raises questions about the motivations of the climate alarmists.
This is one of the things Dr Judith Curry has been going on about for well over a decade now - possibly over 2. The whole clouds/water vapor/aerosol issue is a huge black hole. My understanding is that the error bars for some combination of this overlap 0 which means we don't know if it is a net positive or a net negative.
Considering that a large part of the climate scare is that we believe that increased CO2 leads to increased water vapor and we believe that increase water vapor increases atmospheric temperatures this is kind of critical
Nice clickbait.
Two comments:
1. Climate scientists do write about this in papers. Reducing uncertainty of past observations is an important area of climate research, but when the past is unknown (or has large error bars) because no one was able to measure it, it's unknown (or continues to have large error bars). But still, they try.
Here's one example:
Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity, Bjorn Stevens, Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony & Mark J. Webb, Earth's Future (2016)
2. There are lots of areas of climate with major uncertainty but rule #2 of climate scientists *in media communications* is not to mention major uncertainty. Rule #1 *in media communications* is not to mention good news.
1. Thank God climate scientists do write about this. If they had more funding, they'd do it more!
2. Very true. We're only now starting to grasp how these norms are warping public understanding of the whole issue.
The process that allocates funds for research is far from rational, but a "scandal", I don't think so.
I have known or known of quite a number of scientists specializing in atmospheric chemistry, which takes them to aerosols. The one I know best has won major awards for that work; it has not been a path to obscurity.
What is notable, for that scientist among others, is that their research over time produces results that are taken as strengthening or reducing the case for climate alarm. They have reported that their treatment by that crowd changes incredibly based on what their latest result is thought to imply.
The reality is that no one result in that field can be definitive and, as you say, you would need to pour buckets of money into it to make progress more quickly. Which raises questions about the motivations of the climate alarmists.
This is one of the things Dr Judith Curry has been going on about for well over a decade now - possibly over 2. The whole clouds/water vapor/aerosol issue is a huge black hole. My understanding is that the error bars for some combination of this overlap 0 which means we don't know if it is a net positive or a net negative.
Considering that a large part of the climate scare is that we believe that increased CO2 leads to increased water vapor and we believe that increase water vapor increases atmospheric temperatures this is kind of critical
I read (well skim) her blog periodically, she often has interesting science from others as well as her own work. For example this seems highly relevant to your post - https://judithcurry.com/2024/08/04/role-of-humans-in-the-global-water-cycle-and-impacts-on-climate-change/
You may find what I've written in Foreign Affairs on convergence and consensus resistant parameter uncertainties of interest :
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2009-07-01/next-top-model