How does this year's Nobel Prize for chemistry relate to climate science?

I had the same thought when I saw this. Consensus and prevailing theory says that what he found "could not" possibly be true.

However he was able to produce empirical data showing that possible or not possible, it was occurring. Sounds a whole lot like the arguments between AGW proponents and skeptics. Skeptics demand empirical data. AGW proponents say either the models are evidence of empirical data or that the issue is so important and so immanent that we can not afford to wait the decades necessary to gather the empirical data on climate systems.

So how does it relate to climate science?

Look for empirical data. When the data, which has not been filtered, smoothed, or otherwise modified demonstrates a fact then everyone with a scientific background will have to take notice. Of course as is natural, common and good in science we will likely continue to differ on aspects of cause and effect.

Now there's a thought. I think most of the work that would produce Nobel Prizes would occur in the next thirty years and would roll back to include the last ten. There is an absolutely incredible amount of research at the government level throughout the world, but I expect it will be the research underway at the university level that produces the lion's share of research gems. Today I was exploring the link for Oxford University's 'Environmental Change Institute' and their 'School of Geography and the Environment,' which led me to GECAFS and FOMAS. (Global Environmental Change and Food Systems and Sweden's Research Council). In the past I've documented nearly 100 sites that involve research that will forward our knowledge of the situation and enable adaptive measures and mitigation to be implemented. How many, then, will be awarded? Potentially, dozens. Time will tell, but the factors that contribute to their success will be the research that ensures a reliable food supply, ensures the public health, and identifies viable alternative energy sources, for starters. Good question, and most likely one that most researchers don't ask themselves until they're well along.

One thing it makes clear is that an elderly, esteemed scientist, such as Linus Pauling, can be completely wrong about current science. On the subject of anthropogenic global warming there is certainly a parallel with Hal Lewis, Ivor Giaever and Freeman Dyson being out-of-touch with modern climate science.

On the subject of the chemistry Nobel, I don't understand why the prize was not shared between Shechtman and Roger Penrose, who came up with the idea earlier (albeit not applied to chemistry). If the chemists had paid attention to mathematics (or even the Mathematical Games column in Scientific American), they would have known such a structure was possible. Perhaps that's another lesson from this that would be worthwhile to deniers: be ignorant of math (and physics) at the risk of appearing a fool.

EDIT: After reading some of the "additional details" and other posts, I really have to wonder whether deniers actually think about things before saying them. Here are some amusing ones:

"Proving a negative is impossible."

Oh really? I'm pretty sure this done both in mathematics and the real world all the time. Sometimes it's much easier to prove a negative. [Personally, I find it embarrassing that a physicist would make such a stupid remark.]

"...the attempt to change the rules of science (as Trenberth wishes)"

I'm quite certain that Kevin Trenberth has no interest in changing the rules of science. Virtually all the things that Mike and other deniers (and he IS a denier) are matters of policy, not science. If they were purely matters of science, virtually all of the deniers in this forum would not even care about them. Exclusive of his stance on global warming, Kevin Trenberth has accomplished an amazing body of work in his scientific career, any one thing of which would have established his name in science. People are stupid if they don't think Trenberth knows what it is to do science.

"Look for empirical data. When the data, which has not been filtered, smoothed, or otherwise modified demonstrates a fact then everyone with a scientific background will have to take notice."

This is the statement of someone that does not understand data or data processing. If he did understand them, he would understand that EVERY piece of data had been filtered in some fashion. When I read statements like this it makes me think that the person uttering it probably has not really thought about what data is past about a junior high school level. The question is not whether or not data has been filtered, smoothed, or modified--it's whether or not one understands the subtleties of the measurement and analysis process--deniers don't.

Wow, so now you are playing up the Nobel Prize, it's not that long ago you and your fellow deniers played them down for picking AGW scientists (& Gore) for the Nobel Prize.

Science has many examples of a small group being right and large groups trying to stick to already established ideas that would be human nature more than science; you can find examples in archaeology, astronomy, medicine and many other fields.

A lone nurse came up with the treatment for polio, plate tectonics was not accepted for more than fifty years, go to certain states in the U.S. and natural selection is still not accepted (no matter what scientists or judges may say or no matter how much evidence they present). It is not that many years ago that a small group of doctors over turned accepted theory on stomach ulcers showing they were actually caused by a parasite and not by stress.

But here is the problem, for every one of the above there are hundreds of examples were science was right and the lone or small group was wrong, but you are not quoting any of those are you! what I'm sure you will also ignore is that in all the above cases they presented their evidence and it was accepted, we are not getting that from deniers except perhaps in publications that denier groups themselves run, like Energy & Environment.

Even AGW went through a process in the 50's & 60's were it was not accepted by mainstream science

As for this, "selectively scientific" I find that deeply funny given that you represent a side of a debate that currently has over 160 different theories and conspiracies trying to explain away AGW, perhaps if your side was a little more selective, you would not come off sounding like a gang of fools.

The simplest answer to any of these denier ramblings about nonsense, is the data, September 2011 is the 8th warmest September on record (globally), 2011 (in spite of a cool start) is the 11th warmest year on record (globally), the year to date temp has risen several places over the last 4 months and is highly likely to break back into the top ten before the end of the year. If 2011 does break into the top 10 warmest, that will mean both the first two years of the 2010's decade are in the top ten, certainly a warmer start than the previous warmest decade (the 2000's), you can play with and reinterpret Trenbaths words till the cows come home, the data shows deniers statements for the nonsense they are.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/9#temp

"unassailable & beyond reproach" are denier catch phrases and not ones I have seen scientists use, scientists are well aware they are not perfect and have never claimed to be perfect, but their theories at least obey the basic laws of physics, something that a number of denier theories are not able to do.

I do like the way you spend much of your question going on about scientific method but then put in this "There is enough public dissent from the AGW alarmists' position that nobody is going to 'prove' anything for decades or a century"

This is classic denier "opinion, consensus means nothing" "but wait, public opinion doesn't like AGW so it can't be true" "look here is a petition signed by 31,000 anonymous web users"

Can you really not see how stupid this argument is? you are fighting a losing battle and I think the rather silly depths your recent question have sunk to show that, I mean when even the oil industry has admitted AGW is happening (which they did several years ago) the denial movement was pretty much finished, it gets revved up by political wrangling in the U.S. mostly by the same political liars who still try to claim the U.S. President was born in Nigeria.

Going on the answers to this post I would say that the question has backfired against you Ottawa Mike. As stated this shows how science works.

Remember it only takes one piece of REAL science/research to dismiss the conclusion that it is highly likely humans are having a net effect on global warming trends.

I am sure there would be a lot more interest and prestige out there for the scientists (university) or corporation that disproves AGW than for those that continue to find the same conclusion as reached by others.

There was no fierce battle against established science. I was at a physics colloquium in 1986 at the University of Waterloo where the invited speaker talked about Penrose symmetry and quasi crystals. I was working on neutron powder diffraction (crystallography) data collected at NRU Chalk River at the time and found the talk quite interesting. The physics community reproduced and confirmed Shechtman's result quite quickly and let the experimental results settle the matter. Few were surprised by the existence of quasi crystals. Some of the precedents known at the time were short range order in glasses, structured water around macromolecules, molecular crystals (my research), , liquid crystal systems and of course Roger Penrose. Climate science has some similarities and some differences. Both the AGW and the quasi crystal theory are based on observations which are published in peer reviewed journals and broadly accepted by scientists. The surprising difference is that quasi crystals have not attracted a gaggle of deniers yet and AGW has.

Every scientist is a skeptic. If he (or she) is not, then they'll never become a good scientist, let alone win a nobel prize.

<<Is there a lesson in here for climate science and scientists? Or will it just more of "kicking the skeptics out of the lab"?>>

The only lesson in this story is that only good science gets someone somewhere, eventually. Not the ExxonMobile funded opinion pieces written by scientists and published at WUWT or similar put actual peer reviewed papers published in respectable scientific journals.

Apparently the supposed speed of neutrinos beyond c has really got the physicists scratching their collective heads. There is much that we don't know. It is something I discovered long ago. I almost feel sorry for those who haven't figured that out yet because the sense of being able to discover something new is like the anticipation of a great journey.

As a geologist, we spent a great deal of time studying crystals. A pentagon structure is pretty weird. Very interesting article.

Thanks

There ought to be a lesson here for climate science "skeptics", rather than for the scientists. It's the "skeptics" that cannot come up with data to support their cause. "Skeptics" continue to miss the point that huge amounts of data are being collected by instrumentation specialists that have no axe to grind with regard to climate change, while scientists from multiple disciplines looking at that data have found nothing in it to contradict the point that we are causing earth to heat up, to our financial detriment, by our burning of fossil fuels.

I'd like to also point out that "skeptics" always seem to say that some new discovery shows the previous science was "wrong". It is just not so. Newtonian physics still works just fine if you stick to speeds well below light speed and sizes larger than quantum lengths. Everything known about standard crystallography still applies - there's just an additional class of semiregular patterns we didn't know about before Shectman's work. Superconductivity didn't repeal Ohm's law.

To contradict our present-day picture of global warming you would need to show compelling evidence that the world is not behaving as expected. Every new result in the observations is touted by "skeptics" as proof that the overall scientific view is wrong, or in Ottawa's case every nuance possible is seized on cast doubt on science in general and AGW in particular, but none of the mud has stuck.

""Is there a lesson in here for climate science and scientists?""

No.

There is a great lesson here for "skeptics" though. Do research, form hypotheses, do more research, if data support it, postulate a theory, support theory with empirical evidence until it gains acceptance.

As soon as a "skeptic" can do this the whole body of climate science will change. Until then, they're just blowing wind.

There is no doubt that changing mainstream scientific thought is a bit like turning a battleship, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible if not manageable even.