Summary: Alternative facts are much in the news. The idea is, of course, ridiculous. Some things are clearly facts. Pizza is delicious; cake makes me happy; serving a white Burgundy at 40 F is an abomination; you should never wear a backpack with a suit.<br> Much of climate science, however, is not what you would call a hard fact. Yes, we can begin with some facts, following immediately with a suite of questions on quantification and mechanism. Yes, the Greenland Ice Sheet is losing mass. But what is driving the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/abs/nclimate2161.html" target="_blank">variations in time and space</a>, are there <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12068.html" target="_blank">physical limitations</a> to retreat rates, what are the constraints on ice sheets behavior from <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7632/full/540202a.html" target="_blank">paleoclimate</a>, what is the role of <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7423/full/nature11566.html" target="_blank">firn</a>/<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/1574-6941.12351/abstract" target="_blank">cryoconite</a>/<a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5843/1381" target="_blank">black carbon</a>?<br> Research moves to the open questions, which, to some, provides an opening to say that scientists don’t have the facts. For the immediate questions at hand, it is of course true that we don’t have the answers — that’s why there’s research! Let’s not lose track of the vast amount of knowledge, and the big picture facts, that we do have.<br> Rant over, at least for now!<br> Sometimes I don’t fully grasp the scope of what Forecast guests are doing until I have time to reflect, during editing or while writing the show notes. That was certainly the case with today’s guest, <a href="https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/abram-nj" target="_blank">Nerilie Abram</a>. Nerilie has astonishingly broad interests. She works with corals, ice cores, speleothems, and modelers on topics all over the world (literally!) from the past to the future.<br> Much of our discussion centered around the process by which Nerilie cracks open new topics: framing questions, conducting research, challenging her own ideas, and grinding through the review process. Over time, this is the work that ends up in the fact category. It takes, in addition to mad technique, stubbornness:<br> Science requires, for all sorts of reasons, people who are going to be able to stick it out in this game, to have that kind of determination … not just the skills<br> Facts are indeed hard to come by, and proxies can be particularly bedeviling, particularly if one takes the time to actually think about them:<br> When you’re dealing with indirect proxies, things can change that you’re not expecting<br> The geochemistry behind proxies is hard enough. Interpreting the data with physically meaningful hypotheses, and testing everything with compelling statistics — is even harder. Nerilie is doing all of this, on topics ranging from tropical <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/301/5635/952" target="_blank">ocean-atmosphere-coral interactions</a>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11391.html" target="_blank">Holocene climate</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113000206" target="_blank">sea ice proxies</a>, and <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html" target="_blank">hemispheric reconstructions</a>.<br> All of which makes me think of Nerilie as the Danny Meyer of science. What, you’re running <a href="http://www.themodernnyc.com/" target="_blank">a restaurant in a museum</a> now? Or in Nerilie’s case, what, you had a quick talk with <a href="https://en.wikipedia."></a>
