More climate of fear…

July 20, 2011

Another few bars in the endlessly played dirge, The End is Nigh, from the NYTimes:

ENJOYING the heat wave?

The answer is probably no if you live in Abilene, Tex., where temperatures have been at or above 100 degrees for 40 days this summer. It’s been a little cooler in Savannah, Ga., where the mercury hit 90 or more for 56 days in a row.  How does this compare to business as usual, I wonder?  Those are hot places.

Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma are coping with their driest nine-month stretch since 1895I always wonder when I hear claims like this, was it hotter in 1895?  Is this the first year since 1895 that the ’95 record is surpassed?  Why was it so hot then, global warming?  How much hotter was it?

 Yes, it has been a very hot summer after one of the most extreme-weather springs on recordJust what does that last phrase mean?  Cold springs, hot summers, it’s all global warming!  Is she referring to the flooding?  

It’s time to face the fact that the weather isn’t what it used to beAlways a safe statement.

Every 10 years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recalculates what it calls climate “normals,” … climate of the last 10 years was about 1.5 degrees warmer than the climate of the 1970s, and the warmest since the first decade of the last century. Temperatures were, on average, 0.5 degrees warmer from 1981 to 2010 than they were from 1971 to 2000, and the average annual temperatures for all of the lower 48 states have gone up.   A barrage of stats in no particular order.  “All gone up,” how much?  0.5 degrees?  Not very much!  1.5 degrees warmer than the ’70s, but what about that “first decade of the last century.”  More clarity would be nice.  Seems like throwing a lot of stuff to see what sticks.

The numbers don’t take sides or point fingers. They acknowledge both powerful natural climate fluctuations as well as the steady drumbeat of warming caused by roughly seven billion people trying to live and prosper on a small planet, emitting heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the process.  Not much talk about natural fluctuation, but quite a drumbeat about AGW!  Where’s the link?

Even this seemingly modest shift in climate can mean a big change in weather.   This is having it both ways.  It’s modest, or it’s not.  Fact is, it is modest, but that doesn’t fit with the message.

Shifting weather patterns influence energy demand, affect crop productivity and lead to weather-related disasters. In the United States, in any given year, routine weather events like a hot day or a heavy downpour can cost the economy as much as $485 billion in crop losses, construction delays and travel disruptions, a recent study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research found.  Take out the word “shifting,” and you have a statement that is both true and unremarkable.  And weather is always shifting, i.e. changing. 

In other words, that extra 1.5 degrees might be more than we can afford. And while the new normals don’t point to a cause, climate science does. Drawing from methods used in epidemiology, a field of climate research called “detection and attribution” tests how human actions like burning fossil fuels affect climate and increase the odds of extreme weather events.   “Might be more than we can afford..,” and maybe they might not be.  Just throwing it out there…Maybe we should spend and plan more for how to deal with extreme weather events regardless of whether there will be more of them.  We do a pretty bad job of that now.  Please note the lack of discussion on just how these epidemiological methods work in the field of climate studies.

Heat-trapping pollution at least doubled the likelihood of the infamous European heat wave that killed more than 30,000 people during the summer of 2003, according to a study in the journal Nature in 2004.   Let’s assume that this claim is true, and that nobody else has published different results since 2004.  Certainly, this author will not tell us if they have or not.  Just what were the chances for the hottest summer in Europe since the 16th century?  Pretty small, I imagine, and double a small number is still a small number.  That’s the nature of a rare event.  As for the horrible death toll, that was largely due to the complete lack of preparedness for such events – alerting systems, cooling centers for senior citizens, public education on how to survive a heat wave – because such an event was unprecedented.  Government health agencies should have considered the possibility, but that’s not the fault of climate change.

And if we don’t ease our grip on the climate, summers like that one will likely happen every other year by 2040, the study warned.   People make warnings all the time.  The world was supposed to end in May 2011…

Using climate models, we can project what future Julys might look like.  Time to dust off my collection of crystal balls for sale…


Global Warming Sinks Island Republic

July 19, 2011

The NYTimes had an OpEd piece today telling the sad tale of a tiny island republic, Nauru, that is doomed to obliteration, because of global warming, it would seem.  Reading the entire article closely, however, the cause is not so clear-cut.  The article is typical of many that appear in the news and advocacy press, so I am going through it point by point, my comments in bold.  The plain text of the original piece can be read here.

I FORGIVE you if you have never heard of my country…

But make no mistake; we are a sovereign nation, with our own language, customs and history dating back 3,000 years….an indispensible cautionary tale about life in a place with hard ecological limits...  Yes, cultures that take root in locations with such limits are fragile.  Consider the vanished Easter Island societies. 

Phosphate mining, first by foreign companies and later our own, cleared the lush tropical rainforest that once covered our island’s interior, scarring the land and leaving only a thin strip of coastline for us to live on…  This is certainly the most serious ecological disturbance that was visited on the island.  If not for that, the people could live elsewhere on the island, and the state of the coastal zone would not be so critical for them.  Nothing to do with climate.

I am not looking for sympathy, but rather warning you what can happen when a country runs out of options. The world is headed down a similar path with the relentless burning of coal and oil, which is altering the planet’s climate…  Not clear why the rest of the world is taking the same path by burning fossil fuels.  Clearly, the industrial world has many things it can do better, but the problems of Nauru are not the problems of most of the world.

Climate change also threatens the very existence of many countries in the Pacific, where the sea level is projected to rise three feet or more by the end of the century. Already, Nauru’s coast, the only habitable area, is steadily eroding  The sea level rise that is claimed so far, if it is accurate, is quite small.  Why would it be responsible for such damage to Nauru already?   More likely, the destruction of the natural land cover has led to a drainage situation in which the land is steadily and rapidly eroded.  The island is being washed away.  As for the three-foot sea level rise, that is a worst-case scenario that should be taken with many grains of salt.

…and communities in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands have been forced to flee their homes to escape record tides. The low-lying nations of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands may vanish entirely within our grandchildren’s lifetimes.   They may vanish, and they may not…  Hasn’t happened yet.  People are running from flooding, not ‘record tides.’  One reason they flee is that most urban development has been taking place in flood-prone areas, despite the advice of engineers and geographers.   In many of these places, the land is sinking, which makes things worse.

Similar climate stories are playing out on nearly every continent, where a steady onslaught of droughts, floods and heat waves, which are expected to become even more frequent and intense with climate change, have displaced millions of people and led to widespread food shortages.   The usual litany, recited without any support.  Droughts, floods, and heat waves are always with us.  More people, more urbanization in the wrong place, better reporting – more disaster.  “Expected to become more frequent…” is simply a crystal ball prediction, not a proven fact.  Just pile on the horror stories…

The changes have already heightened competition over scarce resources, and could foreshadow life in a world where conflicts are increasingly driven by environmental catastrophes….    There is always competition for scarce resources: which ones are at issue here?  Water?  That’s been a concern for decades, rightly so, and has nothing to do with climate change.  Food costs?  The subsidies for ethanol have more to do with global food riots than does climate change since they resulted in a reduction in food grain exports.

The stakes are too high to implement these measures only after a disaster is already upon us...   Unfortunately for Nauru, if the global warming predictions are correct, it’s already too late to help the island escape the effects of climate change.

Nauru has begun an intensive program to restore the damage done by mining, and my administration has put environmental sustainability at the center of our policymaking.   Good show!  For such a small and vulnerable environment, that’s what is needed, especially forest restoration.

I wish the people of Nauru all the best with their efforts.


The Weathermen

March 30, 2010

Maybe you do need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

Today’s NYTimes:   Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming

 Also, see this earlier post by Super Mom:   “You don’t need a climatologist to know which way the wind is blowing.”

Voodoo Science

January 18, 2010

London, January 9 : Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has described the Indian government report that criticized the claim by IPCC over the faster than expected melting of Himalayan glaciers, as “voodoo science“.

Voodoo economics [G. Bush on Reagan], “…Do do that voodoo, that you do so well..[Cole Porter]“, Voodoo Child [Hendrix]… 

the Haitian religion of Vodou has long been a cliche for superstion and black magic in American culture.  Maybe, with attention focused on the catastrophe facing Haiti, it’s time to think of it with a bit more sensitivity.  It’s just a hemispheric religon (Haiti, Brazil, Puerto Rico…etc.) going by different names, and with differing forms everywhere, that has its roots in the mixing of the beliefs of the African slaves dragged over here and the Christianity imposed on them.  It has its weird, vulgar, and nasty side – the pin-sticking dolls and curses – but what religion doesn’t?  Christianity??

That’s why I cringe a bit at Pachauri’s characterization of the inconvenient views of a glaciologist as “voodoo science.”  How about Catholic science?  He’s full of himself, anyway…

Just add it to the pile of  ethnic and racial slurs that give color to our language:

“He gyped me.”  Can’t trust a gypsy.
“He jewed me down to a lower price.”  Pretty obvious.
“She’s an Indian-giver.”  Yep, those redskins really screwed over the white people!

You can add your own.


The heart of the matter: those CRU files!

November 24, 2009

This letter to Andy Revkin of the New Times, DotEarth, is an excellent statement of the genuine issues raised by the CRU “hacked” emails.  The issues are serious.  Highlighting is by me.  I found this text at Jeff Id’s blog, The Air Vent, but it is linked in many places.

Oh, and if you want to jump to a really juicy email instead of reading this long letter, check out this one.  Seems they weren’t so confident in their long-term projections after all, nor in their repeated denials (are they the denialists?) that the models had failed to predict a current sustained stalling of temperature rise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. Revkin,

I am writing to you to express my concerns with the content of the emails and documents that were recently obtained and released from the University of East Anglia. In my opinion, many of the comments in the blog articles about this incident have taken extreme positions that cloud the importance of the information that is contained in the documents and emails. With that in mind, I would like to take a moment to describe what I feel are the critical lessons that can be learned from this incident.

So that you understand my perspective, I have been labeled as a climate change skeptic, a contrarian, anti-science, and denialist. I have been referred to in a derogatory fashion (and have even been the subject of an entire, somewhat condescending post on RealClimate concerning analyses I had done on the Steig Antarctica paper) because I have questioned the results of several influential articles on climate change. I feel these characterizations are unfair, as I believe that humanity is contributing in a meaningful fashion to the observed rise in global surface air temperatures. I have witnessed several of my contemporaries being labeled in similar fashion in spite of the fact that they, too, believe the same.

 This illustrates the polarization of the climate change debate that is a dangerous impediment to the science. It appears that unless one believes that catastrophic consequences will necessarily result unless a certain set of draconian measures are taken, that one is dismissed as a crackpot, a liar, and is insinuated or directly accused of having been paid off by corporate interests. This produces a destructive environment for discussing the science of climate change.

As a skeptic, I can say in no uncertain terms that the emails and documents from the University of East Anglia do not show that AGW is a falsehood or hoax. Claims that “global warming is dead” (as I have seen) are not supported by those documents. On the other hand, claims that “the science is settled” are shown to be an exaggeration.

While vocal skeptics such as Steve McIntyre have been vilified by several influential scientists, the content of the emails demonstrate quite clearly that many of the concerns were legitimate and that this was known by the scientists who repeatedly and publicly denied the veracity of those claims. These include, but are not limited to:

· The concern that the significance statistics for MBH 98 were benchmarked to an inappropriate type of noise. Despite public claims to the contrary, Dr. Mann states clearly in email 1059664704.txt that the calibration residuals were “significantly red” for at least two cases. This validates the McIntyre & McKitrick criticism that the confidence intervals and benchmark significance statistics were incorrectly calculated and that MBH claimed greater statistical significance for their reconstruction than was supported by the data.

· The concern that the WMO 1999 main graphic, MBH 98, and several other reconstructions included in the IPCC spaghetti graphs had inappropriately spliced instrumental temperatures onto the end of the reconstructions. Despite Dr. Mann publicly stating that “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum,” on RealClimate, it is quite clear that this is exactly what was done in emails 0966015630.txt and 0942777075.txt.

· The concern that without either stripbark foxtails, bristlecones and/or the Yamal chronology that the hockey stick shape in the 20th century was greatly reduced. Despite pre-publication discussion and disclosure of review comments of the Wahl & Ammann and Ammann & Wahl defenses of MBH in which the McIntyre and McKitrick claims were dismissed as “total crap”, none of these individuals checked WA and AW closely enough to see that they performed not a single reconstructions that did not include at least one of the offending chronologies. They also express concerns that there are methodological problems with MBH, but were more concerned with defending MBH than disclosing factors that they know may partially undermine the result or increase the uncertainty of the result. This may be seen in emails 1102956446.txt, 1108248246.txt, 1122669035.txt, and others.

· The concern that the Yamal selection used in Kaufman 2009 and other papers was only a subset and, if the full chronology is used, that the answer changes in a non-trivial fashion. In a string of emails, it can be seen how several of the most influential scientists begin discrediting this concern before they had even researched the claim to see if it is legitimate. As it turns out, it is a legitimate concern, though claims of fraud by some bloggers do not seem substantiated. Rather, confirmation bias seems far more likely. These are in emails 1256760240.txt, 1256735067.txt, 1254756944.txt, and others.

As you may be aware, this is only a partial list.

These serve to illustrate not that the scientists involved are engaged in fraudulent behavior for personal gain, but rather that they feel that it is their right or duty to be the gatekeepers of what information is allowed to be seen. I think it is clear that the scientists believe that they are correct. I think it is clear that they use this belief to justify actively engage in censoring their own results (and pressure others to censor theirs) to prevent full disclosure of the uncertainties involved in the methods they employ. I think it is clear that they use this belief to justify attempts to discredit legitimate criticisms, in some cases with the knowledge that those criticisms are accurate. I think it is clear that they use this belief to advocate suppressing free expression on the internet. I think it is clear that they use this belief to attempt to manipulate the peer review process to present their results in a way that lends more credibility to their conclusions than otherwise would be the case. This is advocacy, not science. It in no way invalidates AGW theory, but it does call into question the certainty with which these scientists claim to understand the magnitude of the AGW effect – and, by extension, the magnitude and timing of the anticipated consequences.

This naturally leads into another important lesson: the insular nature of this relatively small, yet incredibly influential, group of scientists leads them to believe that it is their right to decide who should be privy to data and code. As a party to several of the FOIA requests of the University of East Anglia and CRU, I find myself appalled at the cavalier manner in which several key individuals handled FOIA requests. Some of the most telling emails are 1106338806.txt, 1212009215.txt, 1212063122.txt, 1214229243.txt, 1219239172.txt, and 1228412429.txt (among others) which indicate coordinated activities to prevent release of the data due to who was requesting it rather than the legitimacy of the request, to delete or destroy relevant data, and collusion with the FOIA officers to deny requests without properly examining whether the request was legitimate. While I do not believe that this activity should result in any kind of criminal prosecution whatsoever, I do believe that it should result in some form of corrective and/or disciplinary action by the appropriate institutions.

It is my hope that the above issues, not the unsubstantiated claims that AGW is “dead” or AGW is a “hoax”, are the issues that have traction. Otherwise, it is possible that these irresponsible claims – which are easily dismissed – will drown out the very real need for reforms to make climate science more open and accessible. Conversely, it is possible that these irresponsible claims could derail grants for additional research and damage support for many important mitigation activities that to this point were seen as not controversial (such as increased recycling efforts, development and increased commercialization of alternative energy, and similar efforts).

This letter is not intended for you to publish (though you may, as long as you do not quote it out of context). It is intended to provide you with a perspective from a “skeptic” who feels that the important lessons of this incident have not been well-carried by either the blogs or the media coverage. I write to you specifically because, although we may differ in our opinion of whether AGW is a presently a “crisis” and what the ideal mitigation/prevention activities might be, I have read enough of your column to believe that you are honest and forthright, and that you welcome hearing multiple sides of the climate debate. I enjoy your work (even when I disagree with your conclusions) and wish you continued success.

“Ryan O”


Clarity, please

July 29, 2009

thermometer 

 

 

 

From a call for papers I received:

2009 Watershed Science & Technical Conference

Within the scientific community, the phrase “climate change” is replacing “global warming” because Earth is not just getting warmer. It is also changing, and changing in ways that scientists are just beginning to explore.

Sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting and shrinking, plants and trees are blooming earlier and in places where they have never bloomed before, growing seasons are lengthening, polar permafrost is thinning.

The scientific debate is changing as well, moving away from whether and why we are warming, to what effects climate change will have on Earth’s environment, and just what exactly is causing it. Is it simply human output of greenhouse gasses? Is it a natural climatological progression?

To sum up:

  • Scientists are now focusing on “climate change”, not “global warming”. (Climate can cool or warm.)
  • The Earth’s climate is getting warmer, with notable effects.
  • Scientists are focusing no longer on if and why we are warming, but how climate change (warming effects) will affect the Earth
  • Scientists are focusing on why the earth is warming/changing. 
  • Global climate change might be a natural phenomemon or it might be caused by greenhouse gasses (which are supposed to cause warming.)

Is Terra Burning…and how do we know?

March 20, 2009

bosch_burning

I’m feeling like a crank, but somebody’s got to do this dirty job…

I just read Chapter 4 of this book,  Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The chapter I read is called “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change:  How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” and it’s by Naomi Oreskes.  Professor Oreskes is now well known for an essay she published in Science in which she described the results of a survey of nearly 1000 scientific papers, and concluded that the consensus was clearly on the side of global warming being caused by human industrial activity.  To quote her university profile page:

Her 2004 essay “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (Science 306: 1686), led to Op-Ed pieces in the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Los Angeles Times, and has been widely cited in the mass media, including National Public Radio (Fresh Air), The New Yorker, USA Today, Parade, as well as in the Royal Society’s publication, “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change,” and, most recently, in Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

The notion of an established consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) especially one established by survey, always struck me as dubious.  I have read only the abstract of her survey paper, but Chapter 4 restates her work and also addresses general questions about the sociology and philosophy of scientific knowledge.  Her reasoning, I believe, is grossly superficial, and obviously influenced by her bias in favor of AGW.  I have to do this, point by point, here we go…italics and emphasis all mine.

Scientists glean their colleagues’ conclusions by reading their results in published scientific literature, listening to presentations at scientific conferences, and discussing data and ideas in the hallways of conference centers, university departments, research institutes, and government agencies. …

Climate science is a little different. Because of the political importance of the topic, scientists have been unusually motivated to explain their research results in accessible ways, and explicit statements of the state of scientific knowledge are easy to find.

“A little different” is a colossal understatement.  The debate has been heavily political because the supporters of AGW advocate far reaching economic changes.  (It happens that I agree with many of their proposals!)  The nature of the debate has been formed also by the circumstance that it isn’t possible to do killer confirmatory experiments to settle the issue and because so much of the base data is disputable in various ways.  Many discussions devolve into debates over statistical methodology.

The IPCC is an unusual scientific organization: it was created not to foster new research but to compile and assess existing knowledge on a politically charged issue. Perhaps its conclusions have been skewed by these political concerns, but the IPCC is by no means alone it its conclusions, and its results have been repeatedly ratified by other scientific organizations.

The question is ratified how, and by whom?  Could not these other organizations have similar biases?  Morever, statements issued by organizations in support of AGW are given much weight in the media, while petitions and letters signed by dissenters are treated as fringe efforts.

These kinds of reports and statements are drafted through a careful process involving many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, so it is unlikely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ memberships. Nevertheless, it could be the case that they downplay dissenting opinions. [note 2]

This does not fit with my knowledge of how organizations function.  Usually, there is a small group of very active people.  It is quite possible that the editorial arms of such professional groups have been ‘captured’ by AGW advocates.  In fact, in her note, Oreskes admits as much, using the Catholic Church as an example.  The views of the priests and the laity are often contradictory.

oreskes_graph

Here is the graphed output from Oreskes’ survey.  She is not particularly disturbed by the fact that no papers at all were discovered that denied/refuted the AGW “consensus,” not a one!

Under the category of Impacts she collects papers that discuss the “potential…or actual impacts” of warming.  Of course, if a paper (I have read several such) begins with the phrase, “Many experts predict warming over the next N years of X magnitude…” and then goes on to assess the ramifications of this speculative change, is this an “endorsement” of the AGW hypothesis?  Does the fact that nobody writes papers about the likely effects of no AGW indicate that nobody thinks the theory is bad?  Of course not!  There wouldn’t be anything to write about!  People who think it will happen as predicted are concerned, and write papers about it.  It also is a handy way to churn out papers in the publish-or-perish mill.  You don’t have to prove anything, just suppose…Similarly, papers that deal with the observed effects of climate change don’t necessarily prove anything about why it is changing.  Oreskes takes the opposite view – all these papers endorse the consensus.

[Note:  We know now that the process of peer review was strongly influenced  by politics  - see my posts on the release of emails called 'Climategate'.  6/4/11]

She also neglects the obvious fact that people who think AGW is a worthless notion will not write papers about this.  What is there to investigate?  People who regard it as plausible but have doubts are in the same position.  Morever, if they are serious scientists, they want to write about their discipline, which may or may not be relevant to the debate, but their priority is to make defensible scientific claims.  Thus, there is quite possibly a vast reservoir of skepticism out there that is missed by her survey.

More…

Second, to say that global warming is real and happening now is not the same as agreeing about what will happen in the future. Much of the continuing debate in the scientific community involves the likely rate of future change.

So, of what does this consensus consist? If we agree that warming is happening now (and not everyone agrees) but we don’t agree on what will happen in the future, how do we have a consensus on the direction of climate change under the influence of human activity?  All scientists agree on the reality of climate change, but that is very different than saying they agree on AGW.

Third, there is the question of what kind of dissent still exists. … The total number of papers published over the last ten years having anything at all to do with climate change is probably over ten thousand, and no  doubt some of the authors of the other over nine thousand papers have expressed skeptical or dissenting views. But the fact that the sample turned up no dissenting papers at all demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.

This might have something to do with the fact that global circulation models (GCMs) are not falsifiable, not subject to controlled experiments, a point which Oreskes treats later on.  If they were, there would be clear target at which critics could aim.  In cases where critics have attempted to directly contradict specific AGW claims, e.g., the Hockey Stick controversy, their arguments, if accepted, are dismissed as unimportant.  How do you write a dissenting scientific paper about a point of view that you think is simply indefensible?

On the media war…

This suggests something discussed elsewhere in this book—that the mass media have paid a great deal of attention to a handful of dissenters in a manner that is greatly disproportionate with their representation in the scientific ommunity.

…they [contrarians] do no new scientific research. They are not producing new evidence or new  arguments. They are simply attacking the work of others and  mostly doing so in the court of public opinion and in the mass media rather than in the halls of science.  This latter point is crucial and merits underscoring: the vast majority of materials denying the reality of global warming do not pass the most basic test for what it takes to be counted as scientific…

There certainly are rabid and irresponsible kooks in the anti-AGW camp.  Of course, the last sentence quoted above would apply equally well to the pro-AGW materials.  I would say that Al Gore’s statements fit in there well.  This text was written in 2007, so I find Oreskes’ lamenting of the media attitude to be puzzling.  My sense is that the mass-media are firmly in the AGW camp, and are condescending and dismissive of opposing views, except in outlets that target a libertarian or right-wing political demographic.  Finally, it needs to be pointed out that to be a good critic of the basic assumptions and methodologies of the AGW camp, you don’t need to be doing new research:  you need to have a good understanding of modern science.

At this point, Oreskes switches gears and become more philosophical in a section called “How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?”  Always a good question to ask.  She begins by reviewing the nature of science, and inductive and deductive reasoning.  Then this:

How does climate science stand up to the inductive model? Does climate science rest on a strong inductive base? Yes.  Humans have been making temperature records consistently for over 150 years, and nearly all scientists who have looked carefully at these records see an overall increase since the industrial revolution about 0.6 to 0.7 deg C… The empirical signal is clear, even if not all the details are clear.

Either there is a clear signal, or there is not.  What does it mean to say that the signal is clear, but the details aren’t?  Isn’t that where the devil is?

How reliable are the early records?  How do you average the data to be representative of the globe as a whole, even though much of the early data comes from only a few places, mostly in Europe?  Scientists have spent quite a bit of time addressing these questions; most have satisfied themselves that the empirical signal is clear.

Of course, this is the nub of so much of the debate, and she skates over it blithely.  Scientists who support the AGW position have convinced themselves, others have not…She goes on to assert that doubts about the older temperature records are not important because the recent, most significant increases in temperature are correlated with the recent upsurge of CO2.  But…but…if the historical record is not as the AGW people would have it, then the historical relationship of CO2 and temperature is not either, and that calls into doubt the contemporary relationship of the two.  So the recent upsurge of both, if it is real on the temperature side, might be due to other causes.

On deductive reasoning:

How does climate science stand up to this standard? Have climate scientists made predictions that have come true? AbsolutelyThe most obvious is the fact of global warming itself. As already has been noted in previous chapters, scientific concern over the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is based on physics—the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Wow, this one is a howler!  Nobody denies the warm blanket effect of CO2 – the question is how that functions in the complex climate system of planet Earth.  Her formulation begs the question entirely.  If one assumes that natural variation is the cause of the putative currrent warming, then the fact of warming proves nothing about AGW.  And, of course, Nostradamus predicted things, or so people say, that have come about too.

Professor Oreskes is no slouch – she goes on to squarely face the Popper Question:  How does one falsify the AGW point of view?

How does climate science hold up to this modification?  Can climate models be refuted? Falsification is a bit of a problem for all models—not just climate models—because many models are built to forecast the future and the results will not be known for some time.

…calibration can make models refutation-proof: the model doesn’t get rejected; it gets revised.

A bit of  understatement there, about falsification.  Yes, models don’t get rejected, they get tweaked until they give the proper results.  She says that modelers get around this by running many models, ensembles, and comparing the results.  They all show warming – only the tempo and mode vary.  But what if the basic assumptions of all the models are wrong?

Is it possible that all these model runs are wrong? Yes,because they are variations on a theme. If the basic model conceptualization was wrong in some way, then all the models runs would be wrong. Perhaps there is a negative feedback loop that we have not yet recognized. … This is one reason that continued scientific investigation is warranted. But note that Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar predicted global warming before anyone ever built a global circulation model (or even had a digital computer). Climate models give us a tool for exploring scenarios and interactions, but you don’t need a climate  model to know that global warming is a real problem.

Oreskes answers her excellent question here with a monumental non sequitur.  The fact that Arrhenius made his predictions long ago does nothing to validate the content of the models.  His predictions were, I believe, for much more warming than is even claimed today.  Her final statement amounts to using her argument as conclusion to support her argument, and recalls to mind an editorial in the NYTimes from a while back.

Finally, we come to this:

Should we believe that the global increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has had a negligible effect even though basic physics indicates otherwise?  Should we believe that the correlation between increased CO2 and increased temperature is just a weird coincidence? If there were no theoretical reason to relate them and if Arrhenius, Callendar, Suess, and Revelle had not predicted that all this would all happen, then one might well conclude that rising CO2 and rising temperature were merely coincidental. But we have every reason to believe that there is a causal connection and no good reason to believe that it is a coincidence. Indeed, the only reason we might think otherwise is to avoid committing to action: if this is just a natural cycle in which humans have played no role, then maybe global warming will go away on its own in due course.

And that sums up the problem. To deny that global warming is real is precisely to deny that humans have become geological agents, changing the most basic physical processes of the earth.

In her summing up, Oreskes brings up basic physics again.  Again, not the issue.  The issue is feedbacks in a complex system.  And the nature of the basic facts on the ground.  Weird coincidence?  The only thing that makes it weird is the predisposition to accept AGW.  Of course, she mixes political with scientific argument by assuming that all critics are against doing anything to address human impacts on the environment – I’m not.  To end, many people think that humans have become significant agents for change on the earth – this is not a new idea.  Criticizing AGW doesn’t have much to do with that position.

And by the way, in case any readers are wondering where I stand: the earth is round, and the Holocaust did happen.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers