It is not worthwhile for RealClimate to post a response to each misinformed newspaper commentary on climate change that we come across. However, George Will’s recent article in the Washington post (in which he praises Michael Crichton’s State of Fear) perhaps deserves special attention because Will is so widely read and respected. We find it disappointing that Will appears not to have bothered looking up the most basic facts before writing his article. See also our earlier post on the George Will article.
We have already posted detailed responses to State of Fear. Here, we respond briefly to the points Will tries to make. The italics are direct quotes from his article.
1. The villains [in Crichton’s book] are frustrated because the data do not prove that global warming is causing rising sea levels
This is a particularly strange example for Will (and Crichton) to choose, since even the most ardent “skeptics” do not question that sea levels are rising, and that this is almost all due to the warming of the planet. The rate of sea level rise (about 1.5 mm/year over the last century, and 2.8 mm/yr since 1992) is well established from direct measurements and its primary causes (thermal expansion of the ocean, and melting of glaciers) are well known. See also the US Geological Survey’s report, National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level Rise and references therein.
2. So they concoct high-tech schemes to manufacture catastrophes … the calving of an Antarctic iceberg 100 miles across…
High-tech schemes to create such catastrophes might be possible, but are hardly necessary. Icebergs much larger than this have broken off the Antarctic Peninsula, and there is good evidence that warming of the surface air temperature is responsible for at least some of these (though warmer water temperatures, and simply the internal dynamics of ice sheets also play a role). There are photographs and films that document this.
3. “greenhouse gases,” particularly carbon dioxide, trap heat on Earth, causing . . . well, no one knows what, or when
The absorption of infrared radiation (the main way that the Earth loses heat to space) by greenhouse gases is a very well understood phenomenon. This is easily demonstrated in the college science laboratory, and is also illustrated by measurements from space that show diminished intensity of outgoing radiation (“light”) at particular (infrared ) wavelengths. This is the reason the Earth’s average temperature is about 15 degrees C, not well below freezing, as it would be without the existence of greenhouse gases. What Will probably is trying to say is that we do not know what will happen because of the increased greenhouse effect that results from anthropogenic increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Yet scientists have worked very hard to answer precisely this question, and they have done so in a precise way: “The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100” (IPCC Third Assessment Report, Summary for Policy Makers, 2001; See e.g. Figure 5).
4. the decline of global temperatures from 1940 to 1970
This is one statement that we can agree with — there was cooling in the 1940s to 1970s. But the cooling is a small variation superimposed on the overall warming of the last century. As many of us have explained many times over, no one is claiming that CO2 is the only influence on climate. Indeed, far from being an embarrassment to climate scientists, this short period of cooling is in good agreement with model calculations that include the other natural and anthropogenic influences (see e.g. the IPCC assessment report Figure 12.7, and the paper by Delworth and Knutson in Science).
5. since 1970, glaciers in Iceland have been advancing.
According to NASA, all but one of Iceland’s major glaciers are receding. Will (and Crichton) would have been on firmer ground if they had used the example of Norwegian glaciers, which almost uniquely in the world have been growing because the increase of precipitation during winter is larger than the increase in melting in summer.
6. Antarctica is getting colder and its ice is getting thicker.
Actually, there is still too little data to say whether Antarctica, on average, is getting thicker. Thickening ice in Antarctica has been predicted by climate scientists for a long time, as a consequence of the greater moisture-carrying capacity of warmer air, so evidence for a thickening ice sheet would actually support, not negate, other evidence for global warming. In any case, there is abundant evidence that the ice sheet is getting thinner (and quickly) along the margins. It is true that some parts of Antarctica have cooled but only in the last two decades; Will neglects to mention that the Antarctic Peninsula is the fastest warming region on earth. More details on the question of recent Antarctic climate change is addressed elsewhere on this website.
7. while Earth’s cloud cover “is thought” to have increased recently, no one knows whether this is good or bad.
Cloud cover is very difficult to quantify, and because different cloud types have different effects, their influence is hard to quantify as well. It is well recognized that our inability to accurately simulate clouds in computer models is the largest uncertainty in climate change projections. This doesn’t change the fact that even the most conservative of these projections – with clouds creating a large negative feedback – nevertheless show significant warming over the next century.
8. Climate-change forecasts … are like financial forecasts but involve a vastly more complex array of variables. The climate forecasts, based on computer models analyzing the past …
This is apples and oranges, and is not a very useful comparison. The question of how many variables are involved is not as important as whether the models represent reality. Climate models vary in complexity from simple 1-dimensional energy balance models to full-fledged general circulation models. Climate forecasts are not based on analyis of the past, but on the principles of physics. Past data is often used to validate models, and these comparisons show, for example, that climate models correctly predicted the cooling of the planet after the Pinatubo volcano eruption.
9. “30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling.”
We find it especially disapponting that Will repeats this historically inaccurate statement.
The “panic” about cooling in the 1970’s is an urban myth. In particular, the Science article from 1976 is totally misrepresented by Will. That article qualified its predictions by “in the absence of human perturbation of the climate system” as did many papers at the time. It is also telling that Richard Lindzen, a well known critic of other climate scientists, happens to agree with us on this. Writing for the Cato Institute, he says: “But the scientific community never took the issue [global cooling] to heart…” (see full text here).
10. [Crichton’s book] has lots of real scientific graphs, and footnotes citing journals.
If Will is trying to make the point that Crichton’s book, while fiction, is nonetheless worth listening to because it draws on real scientific knowledge, it is a rather weak point, since as we have discussed elsewhere, State of Fear is notable mostly for what it leaves out.
Well done. Perhaps Mr. Crichton should stick to books about killer gorillas and lava. Amid all the obfuscation on this issue (the scientific details of which I do not pretend to be intimate with, but am glad you are…) the last thing we need is for the popular culture to fight reality, as well.
Your last point is unfortunately all too common. People are easily dazzled by lots of references and assume it must mean that the author knows a lot about the subject.
In fairness to Crichton, these books are all novels. Our objection to State of Fear — and to George Will’s “review” of it — is that it seems that Crichton wants to be taken seriously. (Presumably George Will wants to be taken seriously at any rate).
I hope you are sending this to the Post. That’s where it will do the most good.
I noticed that there is an editorial in the Post today generally rebutting the idea that the consensus on warming is meaningless and not supported by good science. She doesn’t mention Will or Crichton but at least there was a relevant editorial from the other side.
Editor’s note. This is Naomi Oreskes, who published an essay in Science which we highlighted earlier. See Statistical analysis of consensus.
She mentions some guy at MIT who says that the consensus is based on religious faith. Who is this dude and does he have any credibility?
Reponse: Richard Lindzen. He does have credibility, and is to be taken seriously. Many of his arguments don’t hold water though. We’ll have a post on this at some point.
Richard Lindzen. Here is part of a story:
“Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?” said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
“Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by ‘all scientists,’ you don’t have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief,” Lindzen said. His speech was titled, “Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of ‘Science'” and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.
================================================
Obviously if you ask if someone believes it is a religious question.
The full article is at http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200412/CUL20041202a.html but I can’t open the page.
BTW, Will’s column appears in many papers. Is anyone trying to contact them? Is anyone trying to contact Will?
Nice response. Here’s hoping that reporters in the mainstream media will start parroting this site in preference to wingnut sites like co2science.org, etc…
But it looks like a little “thinko” slipped through in (6). It reads, “Actually, there is still too little data to say whether Antarctica, on average, is getting thicker.”
s/thicker/colder/ ?
Response I mean what I said. A question we’d like to be able to answer well is whether the balance between accumulation of snow and ice and ablation (melting, sublimation, and loss of ice to the ocean via iceberg calving) is positive or negative. We don’t know the answer because the calculation involves a subtraction of two big numbers to get a small number. Over most of the Antarctic ice sheet, snow accumulation rates are about 2 grams per square centimeter per year. Multiply that by the area of the continent to get the total mass of snow added. Now add up all the icebergs you can find, which cracked off the edge of the ice sheet this year. Now subtract the second from the first. Is the answer positive or negative? If it is positive, the ice is getting thicker. See why this is very uncertain?
The question of cooling/warming is separate. Take a look at the map at http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/trends2003.col.pdf to see just how silly it is to claim “Antarctica is cooling.”
While we all agree that the climate shouldn’t change at all, and while nothing whatsoever good has been shown to come from global warming, I find it rather abominable that someone of Will’s stature should be so off-base!
It seems to me that since RealClimate’s credibility comes ultimately from respect for plain old facts, it’s important for you to stop calling the commentator and public intellectual George F. Will a “historian,” as you have done at least three times so far (quoted below). As Google readily confirms, a third of a century ago, when Will was an academic, his field was political philosophy. I’ll bet I’m not the only nonscientist reader of RealClimate who believes this factual distinction is important. Thanks. Those three instances:
* We find it disappointing that Will, trained as an historian, appears not to have bothered looking up the most basic facts before writing his article.
* Remarkably — considering he is an historian — Will also repeats the historically inaccurate claim that “30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling.”
* “30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling.” We find it especially disappointing that Will, trained as an historian, repeats this historically inaccurate statement.
Response Thanks for pointing this out. We note that Will has frequently written as an historian (most famously, history of baseball). Nonetheless we will correct the posts.
A better link to NASA’s study of retreating glaciers on Iceland might be http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010410iceland_glacier.html (in any case, there is a typo in the current link – remove the colon at the end!)
In any case, thanks for a great site!
Someone once told me a story about Lindzen which explains much of what he does scientifically. According to my friend, Lindzen got where he was by adopting unlikely (far out, difficult, wild, etc.) ideas. A few of these were later shown to be correct. Most of the others were forgotten, that being the culture of science and Lindzen got credit for being the creator of the few correct ones. Therefore he will advocate for the unlikely or at least the not well accepted.
Thus such concepts as the adaptive iris.
However, he has now stepped into the policy/political arena, where nothing is forgiven in an opponent and there are a lot of simply wrong concepts that Lindzen has put forth. One begins to see this in the discussions about climate sensitivity. Lindzen’s reaction appears to be to dig in his heels and try to make the issue even more political (or religous in this case) however he better watch out because he has an awful lot of dirty scientific laundry out there in the literature.
Lindzen makes the point that we shouldn’t simply take scientists word for anything, including global warming. But the point provides nothing that would help us confirm or deny its existance. While it is true that 99% of climate scientists could be wrong, this possibility provides little in the way of meaningful guidance for the layman, even the informed one.
The fact is and will remain that the vast majority of the public will never have the time, inclination, or expertise to sort through all or even a significant amount of the data to come to their own independent conclusions.
Yes, to be honest, we should admit that it’s always possible that GW is not really significantly driven my man induced activities.
However, I feel like Lindzen is just encouraging the idea that we should do nothing in the abscence of virtual certainty. After all, all these scientists could be wrong so I will just sit here in smug compacency and continue to burn fossil fuels at whatever rate I damn well please.
When you’re experimenting on the entire planet, you will never have the level of certainty that you have in the lab until it is too late. Too bad we don’t have a spare planet so we can conduct a controlled study.
“Yet scientists have worked very hard to answer precisely this question, and they have done so in a precise way: “The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100″ (IPCC Third Assessment Report, Summary for Policy Makers, 2001;…”
Complete BS. The average surface temperature of the globe has as much chance of rising 5.8 degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100 as the authors of this website have of running 4-minute miles.
Response: As discussed elsewhere on the site, the IPCC scenarios do not come with probabilities attached. The scenarios are simply concievable, and the model simulations are performed to assess the implications of those conceivable scenarios. Similarly, it is conceivable, though unlikely, that one of the authors could in fact run a 4-minute mile (since it is physically possible). My times are unfortunately not quite up to that mark. When putting out the finishing tape, it would therefore be prudent to allow for the possibility that one of us might be that fast. – gavin
For Jim Norton: I emailed Will (his email address is found with the Washington Post column) on Thursday, alerting him to Real Climate’s discussion of Crichton’s book. I received a polite reply (and they had read it, because they addressed me properly), indicating that they would alert him to the Web sites (RealClimate URLs) when he returned from travel. I replied to that by providing RealClimate’s URL for the first discussion of Will’s column. Somebody else should send him the second URL so it doesn’t appear that I’m pestering him.
I sincerely hope that a number of people are replying to him, but we should just try to be informative, not impolite. I did point out in the first message that he had clearly stepped out of his realm of expertise in his Crichton-laudatory column.
What is the role of realclimate.org?
I find the posts (and responses) are best when the reader gets clear explanations of the current understanding of climate phenomena (with the associated uncertainties) and links to sources for further reading. I think this post does a good job. But, there are a couple of problems. First, you make the impression that the IPCC TAR, the “consensus” as discussed in previous posts, is some kind of holy writ to be taken on faith. This kind of “consensus” is a snapshot of what was known in the years leading up to to 2001. Revisions are constantly being made as additional studies and data come to light. For example, there appears to be a greater rate of ice sheet thinning in parts of West Antarctica and Greenland than was known about in 2001. Better understanding of feedbacks in the carbon and hydrological cycles are of great interest. Better understanding of how clouds affect climate sensitivity is clearly important, etc. In other words, put out the word and hope that people will pick up on it and decide for themselves. You’re never going to change George Will’s or Michael Chrichton’s mind. Maybe you can influence the views of others. Ross Gelbspan (Heat Is Online) is a good example. He got turned around when he became angry that he had been lied to by the likes of Richard Lindzen. This constitutes another problem, as I describe directly below.
As far as I know, skepticism about climate change is confined almost entirely to the United States, where it is entirely a political issue. When not waxing eloquent about baseball, George Will has been protecting vested economic interests for many years now. Here’s the best part of Will’s column:
He says this at a time when almost all our environmental laws are under assault. This is a kind of Orwellian reversal, ie. War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Environmentalism (Climate Science) is a Totalitarian Threat.
To this kind of lie, there is no effective reply other than to put out positive reliable information about climate science. Do that and hope for the best. That is the role of realclimate.org in my view. Trashing George Will is a waste of time, his mind is already made up – he does not need the facts. So, I hope realclimate.org will create its own agenda to educate the public and not get bent out of shape with each politically motivated attack. For example, make it clear that the more greenhouse gases that end up in the atmosphere, the more likely it is that there will be greater warming. Or that the troposphere is indeed warming as fast or faster than the surface here. Quoting the IPCC 1.4 to 5.8°C estimate (for doubling CO2) outside current agreements among models that the uncertainty is most likely in the 2.5 to 4°C range or failing to point out that discrepancies (used by skeptics) between surface and troposphere warming have been resolved, is misleading in my view. In fact, it is counter productive. The IPCC TAR is not the bible. Science marches on and the result that human-caused warming is happening is more convincing all the time. Also, I’ll venture this criticism: your early posts on what a General Circulation Model (GCM) is or what a coupled AOGCM model is were short and uninformative to interested laymen. How about telling everybody how these how climate models work in more detail?
I hope you guys (gavin, mike, eric et. al.) will agree with this view about the role of realclimate.org. Or maybe this comment will spur some debate.
Response. Thanks for this thoughtfull comment. A few responses to specific points. 1) I tend to use IPCC because it is an easy reference for people to look up, if they want to check the details. I’m also careful to only cite things from the IPCC TAR where I’m also familiar with the primary literature that IPCC cites. Still, there is a danger in this, as it may gives the impression that IPCC is the only place to get this information, which is certainly not the case. Indeed, there is nothing new in IPCC — it is really just a compilation of existing knowledge. 2) It may be true Will has already made up his mind, but our posts are not really directed at him. In general, I agree that it is a waste of time avoid responding to this sort of journalism, especially when it is so poorly argued and unoriginal (Will makes not a single argument we’ve not all heard — and shown to be wrong — before). But we got a lot of emails asking us to do this, as Will is so widely read. 3) We have limited time to write an entire textbook on climate change science… but a post with more details on how climate modeling actually works will be posted at some point. — Eric
Or: ask a biologist what he thinks of The Andromeda Strain or Jurassic Park (Crichton doesn’t know much about biology). Or ask a physicist what he thinks of Prey (Philip Morrison’s scathing review in Scientific American shows that Morrison doesn’t grasp the even the basic physics underlying nanotechnology). Crichton is an amusing hack, not a science writer. A person who goes to Crichton to learn science is bound to come away ill-informed. A thoughtful person goes to Crichton for his science if he intends to be ill-informed.
Regarding Alex Merz’s comment: the problem with the debate about global warming (and many other environmental issues) is that the uninformed are thinking that they ARE informed because they are getting their information well-spun from “authorities” like Crichton and Lomborg and Gregg Easterbrook and Patrick Michaels. Conservatives are quoting Crichton’s Commonwealth Club speech (link below) as further “proof” that environmentalists have a socialist, anti-economic, anti-human agenda. He cites the supposed DDT “ban” in his speech, and he’s totally off base there, too. Read this:
“Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn’t give a damn. … I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit.”
Remarks to the Commonwealth Club
The first step is to keep people like Crichton and George Will honest — if that’s possible.
[On my previous post, I clicked “post” instead of “preview” before I was finished.]
Although CalorDolor’s comment received no response from the moderators, I hope this statement isn’t the “consensus”. Climate certainly changes over a relevant amount of time. And what of fewer cold-related deaths, longer/better growing seasons for crops, etc? (Not to downplay the predicted bad effects, but the quote did say “nothing”.)
Response. I agree. I’m not sure what it means that “we all agree that the climate shouldn’t change.” For one thing, this is a socio-economic argument, not a scientific one. Furthermore, it is meaningless, as climate does change all the time, with or without human influence. Some aspects of human-influenced climate change will probably be good for some things, just as human clearing of forests is good for starlings, but bad for wood warblers. — Eric
Excellent site. I think the occasional debunking of widely-read sources like Crichton and Will is very important and should be continued whenever the opportunity arises. It’s a good way to connect with people who have read such uninformed sources and wouldn’t want to wade through the literature or too many technical details. But, as you all say, taking the time to respond to every single misinformed opinion on GW isn’t worth it. Just go after the big shots :).
And Alex Merz:
As someone who has at least received undergraduate training as a physicist and is specializing partly in nanofabrication… yeah, ‘Prey’ was terrible. Absolute garbage. The science was horribly wrong and the plot seemed to be lifted from some low-budget made-for-TV movie. I haven’t met anyone who is knowledgeable about nanoscience that has liked the book.
At least nanotech isn’t quite as politicized as climate change has become–but it will be someday, and Crichton is just one of many people who will have directly contributed to that sad fact.
A Richard Hoagland 2004 article, discussed on national radio claims that climate change is occurring throughout
the entire solar system, not just on Earth. http://www.enterprisemission.com/ [Interplanetary] The claim is being used to encourage listeners to conclude that
greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is probably minor. I doubt the cklaim is true, but what can be said to discount it?
Response. This is one of the more outlandish claims I’ve heard! Note that these folks also believe that the “face” on Mars is actually architechure. Given the source of information, it
doesn’t seem worth pursuing this any further. eric
Perhaps we all have some responsibility to take advantage of the excellent information available here to compile and send letters-to-editors of local newspapers rebutting George Will type columns. I have learned to trust Will when reading his reasonable and fact-based analyses of economic issues but he falls off the deep end whenever global warming or the environment is on the table. The same holds true for normally excellent commentary in “Investors Business Daily”. They are rational about economic issues and offer supporting data for opinions but completely fail to handle global warming in a fair and objective manner. The claim that GW has a religious character is best demonstrated from the skeptical side where linquistic legerdemain is crafted to present an illusion that GW is an artifact of hungry scientists desperate for research funding fed by tree-hugging wackos. Keep chipping away at them using reason and facts yet within a context of respect; they have earned it in their own niche.
pat (#21) ~
Hoagland’s argument is based on a vague “New Physics” that Hoagland says he has developed:
“This ‘higher dimensional/hyperdimensional’ description is not just an abstract concept, left over from a few mathematicians a hundred years ago — but is a serious, quantifiable new model…”
Every serious, quantifiable physical model involves heavy-duty math. Until Hoagland shows someone that math, he isn’t even worth talking about.
For all interested persons: Please make use of my Climate Science Search directory at Climate Science Search at my site (under construction) Climate Warning if you want additional information about subjects discussed here at realclimate.org.
This directory is not complete but includes and serves as an adjunct to sources cited by realclimate.org. The goal is to make good climate science web resources available to anyone who wants more information about the topics discussed on this BLOG site. I am making an effort to include sources cited by realclimate.org in this directory.
Also, (for the realclimate.org contributors), if there are good sources of information about climate change that I have left out or not discovered, please let me know. I will include them in my search directory.
There is a review of Crichton’s book in the New Yorker, at http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?050103ta_talk_kolbert, which is available free of charge. It is worth reading.
For all the comments about George Will being wrong (especially #16 above), no one has yet said how the following passage is incorrect:
Will, at least for the duration of the passage quoted is quite correct – factions do have interests. Just exactly how was he incorrect to say that we are urged to bend government policy to favor environmentalists’ suggestions or that those suggestions will require more government supervision of our lives? How is that increased government supervision, including but not limited to, restraint on my ability to leverage my labor by increasing use of mechanical power and the fuel to supply the power different from the creation of a centrally planned economy?
Many things have been argued, but the idea of directly dealing with Will’s contention is simply dismissed as not worth the effort. I’m sorry, but that isn’t really a valid argument, is it?
Response: If you care to notice the arguments here have addressed the scientific aspects of his article. These are generally unsupported by data. Will’s opinion about environmentalists in general is irrelevant to those points. – gavin.
Also… I would also reiterate that RealClimate is not intended for political discussion. But if I may make a vaguely political statement: I am skeptical of political ideas, such as Will’s, that appear to be based on premises that are patently false. I would further suggest that Will is fomenting fear himself — the bizarre fear that scientists like ourselves are part of some vast conspiracy. — eric
Since Will cannot stick to the science, he attacks motives of people he knows nothing about. What proof does he have that any of the climate scientists have the interests he lists. Even if it were true, it is a diversion and a cowardly way to avoid the science, for which he has no expertise. If you want to talk about motives, the other side, bought and paid for by the oil and mineral companies, has far more to answer for. Regardless, it is best to stick to the science.
Eric’s comment (re #26) about a “vast conspiracy” is right on the mark. I once wrote (in a misguided moment of anger) to Jay Ambrose, an editorial writer for Scripps-Howard. He had written a column saying that Soon and Baliunas had demonstrated that Michael Mann’s work and the work of others (showing that the recent warming trend surpassed that of any other in the last 1000 years of climate) was wrong. See Mann’s “Hockey Stick” post. Here’s the relevant part of Ambrose’s reply:
And I immediately thought – he thinks all the climate scientists are fabricating a problem to maintain their funding. This had never occurred to me. That is also a context for Will’s remark.
And I would also say to Gavin’s response (re #26) this: if you’re going to respond to people like George Will, then be prepared to talk about politics because Will is political journalist and not a scientist. Nor, as I said in #16, does he care about the science.
Finally, I think that we can all acknowledge that we all have an agenda. However, the beautiful thing about science is that it is self-correcting and deals in falsifiable hypotheses. Thus science gets around our human flaws most of the time.
The following is from a letter sent to me by my colleague, M. Baker at the University of Washington, and sent as a Letter to the editor at the Post.
“In October I attended my class reunion at University High School in Urbana, IL, where George Will and I were students eons ago. Hanging in the hallway was an article about George. Although I’ve often disagreed with George’s viewpoint as expressed in his writing, his pieces are usually thought provoking, for they display the critical thinking, based on solid information, that Uni High emphasized. George’s column of December 23 on climate change, therefore, came as a major disappointment.
That column began with comments on Michael Crichton’s new work of fiction, State of Fear, in which the novelist has concocted a thrilling story of ecoterrorism practised by fanatic climate scientists. The real theme of George’s column is that climate scientists do not understand enough to make predictions about future climate change, and therefore their warnings are primarily merely ploys (‘unsubstantiated by fact’, to quote George) to increase their own research funding.
This conspiracy theory flies in the face of hard evidence of climate change in recent decades. The global mean temperature rise of less than 1 degree C in the past century does not seem like much, but it is associated with a winter temperature rise of 3 to 4 degrees C over most of the Arctic in the past 20 years, unprecedented loss of ice from all the tropical glaciers, a decrease of 15 to 20% in late summer sea ice extent, rising sealevel, and a host of other measured signs of anomalous and rapid climate change.
These climate indicators have been carefully analyzed by scientists and the results published in scores of rigorously reviewed documents. The most complete compilation of these analyses is the series of reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing literally thousands of scientists from all over the world. The reports began in 1990. In their most recent report, published in 2001, the IPCC stated that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to be attributable to human activities (primarily, burning of fossil fuels, which increases atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide). Since then many other major international scientific organizations have published statements agreeing with this conclusion. The basic fact that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases result in global warming has been understood since it was predicted from physical laws over a century ago; specification of the magnitude and geographical distribution of the warming are elucidated by the twentieth century observations and calculations.
The IPCC and other groups have presented a range of predicted future changes that depend on the future production of greenhouse gases. These predictions necessarily involve uncertainties, but all show that increased warming will accompany increased greenhouse gas emissions.
George Will ignores all this information to argue that, because the predictions are uncertain and change slightly in detail as research evolves, they should not be taken seriously. He chooses isolated incidents to bolster his position, discarding well established global trends.This is analogous to discarding findings by medical researchers on the role of viruses in the spread of certain diseases because a few isolated individuals do not become ill when exposed.
In our twenty first century democracy, the electorate is often called upon to make decisions based on highly technical analyses which that electorate cannot perform for itself. Responsible journalism guides the public toward making such decisions based on the best available information, not on uninformed personal opinion or entertaining fiction. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of the educational principles of good schools like Uni High, and to do the public a grave disservice.”
Re: #10: Icelandic glaciers are not only receding in recent decades, they are receding already since 1890, which was the year with the largest observed ice area. But that was the result of the “Little Ice Age”. Before that, the Iceland coast was largely ice-free. See:
http://southbaymobilization.org/newsroom/earth/articles/00.1022.NowEuropesBiggestGlacierFallsToGlobalWarming.htm
“In the seventeenth century the coastal land around Breidamerkurjökull was ice-free and farmed quite intensively by local people. Cattle and sheep grazed, and barley and wheat were grown.”
About #4 and #10 of the main response to George Will , I think it would be interesting to start a discussion about the real performance of current climate models to “predict the past” (and thus the ability to “project the future”). E.g. if one looks at the 1945-1970 period, the models use sulphate aerosols to offset the influence of CO2 and other GHGs. But the observed influence of sulphate aerosols is much lower than what the models incorporate. See: http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/aerosols.html . As a consequence, the influence of GHGs is overestimated too, besides that solar influences probably are underestimated…
Should nonscientists write about science? Comment 15 notes, factually, that George Will has “clearly stepped out of his realm of expertise” in writing about climate. Comment 27 notes that Will “has no expertise” in climate science. Comment 28 notes that he’s “not a scientist.” And it’s true; he’s not. But I would question the wisdom of using that fact as ammunition in the debate, if that’s what’s intended. It seems to me that when any writer botches any topic, the remedy is reason, not — as is sometimes implied, whether or not it’s implied above — disqualification from further writing about the topic.
In fact, assumptions underlying RealClimate are that, however complicated climate science may be, the facts needed for clear climate understanding aren’t beyond most people’s ability to grasp, and that responsible journalists should learn those facts before committing technopunditry. That’s why I like the end of the letter quoted in Comment 29: “In our twenty first century democracy, the electorate is often called upon to make decisions based on highly technical analyses which that electorate cannot perform for itself. Responsible journalism guides the public toward making such decisions based on the best available information, not on uninformed personal opinion or entertaining fiction.”
In the long run, we’re never going to have climate scientists writing all of the climate-science commentary any more than we’re going to have soldiers writing all the articles about the military or MBAs writing everything that covers business. If George Will has blown it, he should be held accountable for what he wrote, and not for his failure to belong to a class of science mandarins.
Response: You are absolutely right. It should be possible for informed laymen to be acquainted with the basics of the field and of the issues of the day in the same way that I might occasionally comment on a supreme court case for instance. However, what we have here is the (ab)use of science to support a previously held opinion on the merits of some political action. That is not ok, and when commentators do that they should indeed be held accountable. But, if there are seemingly credible scientists telling you things that support you position, commentators could be forgiven for taking them seriously. Most of the time this would be fine, but Will’s contention is that the vast majority of scientists are all wrong and that he knows better. They aren’t and he doesn’t. This is what provokes the responses you mention, not the fact that he merely talked about science. – gavin
Eric and Gavin,
Thanks for “picking up the ball” on getting out the message of scientists. Most of the people I know that work in the field (there are 2 GCM’s under development at my University) don’t care what people think. Although I am not, most of my co-horts are apolitical. You have probably already mentioned this, but GCM’s have been run post-mortem (on old data) and performed very well. A pretty good indication that the models are working very well.
Lindzen, Christy, Spencer et al will never be convinced. It ‘s laughable to hear some from their side still continue to deny the ozone hole! How can you argue with that kind of logic?
Thanks for starting this website and I look forward to more thoughtful posts in the future.
George Will is presumably an expert on political issues. The hosts of this site are presumably experts on climate science. If global warming is considered to be strictly a scientific dispute then Will should be quiet. However to the extent that the global warming dispute is a political question he is compelled to speak and the scientists should maintain a respectful silence about an area in which they have no special credentials.
4. the decline of global temperatures from 1940 to 1970
This is one statement that we can agree with — there was cooling in the 1940s to 1970s. But the cooling is a small variation superimposed on the overall warming of the last century. As many of us have explained many times over, no one is claiming that CO2 is the only influence on climate. Indeed, far from being an embarrassment to climate scientists, this short period of cooling is in good agreement with model calculations that include the other natural and anthropogenic influences (see e.g. the IPCC assessment report Figure 12.7, and the paper by Delworth and Knutson in Science).
Since these models were almost certainly constructed with knowledge of the cooling period, I’m not sure what is proven. Do climatologists make predictions of what will happen over the course of next year?
[Response: The models were constructed at a time when the temperature record was known, although the cooling isn’t built into their basic structure. No-one is claiming that “prediction” of the cooling counts as a major success for the models, since it was hindcast, not predicted. But conversely, to argue that the cooling is a *problem* for GW theory is quite wrong: it can be, and is, quite happily incorporated – William]
Question (from a previous post):
> Do climatologists make predictions of what will happen over
> the course of next year?
Answer:
NOAA’s NWS Climate Prediction Center (CPC) is responsible for issuing
seasonal climate outlook maps for one to thirteen months in the future.
The CPC’s outlook and forecast products complement the short range
weather forecasts issued by other components of the National Weather
Service (e.g. local Weather Forecast Offices, and National Centers for
Environmental Prediction). These weather and climate products comprise
the National Weather Service’s Suite of Forecast Products.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/forecasts/
Another answer to Andrew Boucher is http://www.ccsindia.org/gw_debate.htm. Read the whole thing!
Pat: Perhaps I am wrong, but my impression is that the forecasts of the weather service 1 month into the future are not very good. Is there any study how good the 1 year forecasts have been over a ten year period?
Eli: the link doesn’t work. The home page is pretty much a hodge podge, so I couldn’t find see anything on global warming.
I have two concerns about this subject:
1. The constant jabbering between “scientist” and “nonscientist”. Science is not a person it is a process. Too much scientific personality has become involved whereby we are told that most scientists agree that global warming is occuring. There are a myriad of examples where most scientists were completely wrong, for example, it was once believed that bacteria could not live in the acid of the stomach.
2. This seems to be the only field which seems to treat computer models as fact. There is a canyon of reality between a computer model and the actual working planet. Using Pinatubo as a demonstration as to how well computer models work is almost funny since hindsight is 20/20. Could you please provide a list of accurate computer model predictions like Pinatubo and those that were wrong?
Response: Nobody is treating computer models as ‘fact’. They are merely a useful tool that contain a lot of what we know about the climate, and provide a way to quantify the net effects of all the different feedbacks. I don’t understand your point about hindcasting – what are we to use for validation other than ‘experiments’ that have already taken place? Only the information about the forcings are included in such simulations, not the climate response! In addition, there were sucessful predictions of the net effect of Pinatubo prior to them being seen (i.e. Hansen et al. 1992). Also, model results published in 1989 (see this post) have shown a good match to global temperatures over the last 15 years. – gavin
Reply to “Response” from Gavin on Post 39:
If enough people make predictions through computer models, you can always go back in time and find one that was accurate. That is called cherry picking.
I’d agree about the danger of cherry picking.
On the other hand, re my question about predictions, the response in 39 is closer to what I was looking for. If climatologists have a model from 1989 which predicts (given the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) what the temperature increase is, then that would go a long way to allaying my concerns.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but since this does not seem to be a central argument of the climatologists now – look we made the prediction fifteen years ago, we’ve been constantly right, and the same model predicts x increase over the next 75 years should CO2 increase y – then there is probably something wrong with this prediction or the constantly right part or the model used to make it (have climatologists already changed it?) or the confidence that climatologists have with predictions from this model in the future.
If there is nothing wrong, then I would modestly suggest that climatologists are not emphasizing the strongest part of their scientific argument.
If there are too many models for there to be some general consensus of what the prediction should be, then we do in fact revert to the problem of cherry picking. At least some of the models can be expected to be correct after a (short) period of observation.
[Response: GCMs have advanced a lot in 15 years. I would trust a modern GCM much more than a 15 year old one. I don’t think the verification or otherwise of 15 year old predictions should be counted as a major argument in favour (at the same time, I don’t think that the skeptics assertions that past GCMs have been hopelessly wrong are worth anything). Nonetheless, as it turns out, the old predictions aren’t startlingly different from the new ones. There is more to be said on this, it might make a post on its own one day – William]
Sorry, try http://www.ccsindia.org/gw_debate.htm which worked a minute ago. However, since it applies to the current exchange, let me quote the first three paragraphs (also it will let anyone google the article should there be another urlup
The Global Warming Debate
By James Hansen
The only way to have real success in science … is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good about it and what’s bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. –Richard Feynman
In my view, we are not doing as well as we could in the global warming debate. For one thing, we have failed to use the opportunity to help teach the public about how science research works. On the contrary, we often appear to the public to be advocates of fixed adversarial positions. Of course, we can try to blame this on the media and politicians, with their proclivities to focus on antagonistic extremes. But that doesn’t really help.
The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious, political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence). Indeed, science thrives on repeated challenge of any interpretation, and there is even special pleasure in trying to find something wrong with well-accepted theory. Such challenges eventually strengthen our understanding of the subject, but it is a never-ending process as answers raise more questions to be pursued in order to further refine our knowledge.
Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism.
I have argued in a recent book review that some “greenhouse skeptics” subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend
To Michael Langdon: as part of an implicit argument that scientists cannot be trusted on, apparently, any subject, you say that it was once believed that bacteria cannot survive in the acidic environment of the stomach. It is true that the vast majority of bacteria cannot survive in the stomach, and that the stomach does not normally support a large flora in comparison to mouth, intestines, or skin. This has been known for a long time. It has also has been evident for a long time that some bacteria can survive can survive transiently in the stomach. Else, how would enteric pathogens (Salmonella, Vibrio cholerae, etc.) make it to the intestine where they cause disease.
It is also true that many scientists — principally endocrinologists and GI specialists, not infectious disease specialists — did not believe that gastric ulcers might have a bacterial etiology. This was principally because the issue had not been intensively investigated. When evidence — data! — began to emerge that there might indeed be a bacterial etiology, acceptance within the infectious disease community was relatively fast. I know this because I was a student at the time (my doctorate is in microbiology and immunology, with emphasis on bacterial pathogenesis). It was mainly gastreoenterologists who resisisted the bacterial hypothesis, and when sufficient evidence accumulated, that community was almost entirely swayed by the evidence as well.
So what, exactly, was your point?
In post #37 Andrew Boucher wrote:
> Perhaps I am wrong, but my impression is that the forecasts of the
weather service 1 month into the future are not very good. Is there
any study how good the 1 year forecasts have been over a ten year
period?
Andrew, , from another page on the NWS CPC website it says:
Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model (CMP) Tool
LONG-LEAD FORECAST TOOL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (REVISED 11/01)
FORECAST TOOLS:
THE CMP IS AN ENSEMBLE MEAN FORECAST OF A SUITE OF 20 GCM RUNS FORCED
WITH TROPICAL PACIFIC SSTS PRODUCED BY A COUPLED OCEAN-ATMOSPHERE
DYNAMICAL MODEL. THE CMP SKILL HAS BEEN ESTIMATED THROUGH THE USE
OF 45 YEARS OF SIMULATIONS USING THE NCEP CLIMATE GCM FORCED BY
SPECIFIED OBSERVED SSTS. THE SKILL OF THE CMP FORECASTS DEPENDS
HEAVILY ON ENSO – BEING ALMOST ENTIRELY ASSOCIATED WITH EITHER COLD
OR WARM EPISODES. …
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/tools.html
I don’t know the answer to your question. I don’t know if numerical
verification tables are available for the monthly and seasonal
outlooks for precipitation and temperature.
I find it confusing that the NWS Climate Prediction Center issues
“climate” outlooks which have nothing to do with the subject of
climate change or global warming.
The NOAA NWS strategic plans use “Climate variability and Change”,
which I find tob be confusing, even misleading at times. This is a
major federal agency with direct ties to local and national media,
local and state agencies, other federal agencies, and businesses
world wide. NOAA, NWS have the machinery to educate the public
about global waming. Why isn’t this working like it should?
People have a responsibility to learn what’s going on. They need to
know where to go to for advice about regional climate change and
global climate change / global warming. I think NWS, with their
many local offices and ties to media and local govs, need to be
educating the public on climate change, but that has not happened.
Why? Managers of government agencies that have the responsibility to
inform the public on safety and the environment are failing in their
duties.
If the government had known of the magnitude of the devastation that
was about to happen it likely would have sounded the warming…. but
not knowing is NO excuse for not acting… it was irresponsible to
downplay the danger and do nothing, which is what the U.S. government
continues doing in regards to global warming.
My hope is that the Dec 26, 2004 tsunami in the Indian ocean has
jarred the U.S. enough to stir the people and government in the U.S.
into action on global warming. Then at least some good might come
from the horrible devastation caused by the tsunami.
I am aware of the hostility that some people may have toward those
that try to connect the tsunami with global warming issues. However,
I see this as more than an opportunity. They should be connected
because it seems clear that failing to warn about the tsunami and
failure to warn about global warming are connected, by the failure
to warn.
Pat
This is an addition to the message that I sent about 20 minutes ago
that was in reply to #37 comment by Andrew Boucher.
I meant to precede my closing comments on the important connection
between the tsunami and global warming with this note from another:
>> It is also worthy of note that it is now being said
>> that the warnings of tsunami were not given by some
>> governments “in deference to the tourism industry”.
> If the government had known of the magnitude of the devastation
> that was about to happen it likely would have sounded the warming…
> but not knowing is NO excuse for not acting… it was irresponsible
> to downplay the danger and do nothing, which is what the U.S.
> government continues doing in regards to global warming.
> My hope is that the Dec 26, 2004 tsunami in the Indian ocean has
> jarred the U.S. enough to stir the people and government in the U.S.
> into action on global warming. Then at least some good might come
> from the horrible devastation caused by the tsunami.
The duties of government
Fundamentally, government has only a limited range of duties.
Defending the borders, policing the streets, providing a framework
for education and promoting public health are prominent among them.
Maintaining a high quality environment and overseeing the provision
of a modern transport system are two more.
And the impact of the quality of our environment on public health is
something which is increasingly clear.
Today, policy-makers must respond to every aspect of the environment.
Presentation in full:
http://www.cps.org.uk/pdf/lec/56.pdf
Pat N
My originial messages didn’t make it so I will replace it with this.
In post #37 Andrew Boucher wrote:
> Perhaps I am wrong, but my impression is that the forecasts of the
weather service 1 month into the future are not very good. Is there
any study how good the 1 year forecasts have been over a ten year
period?
Andrew, THE SKILL OF THE CMP [Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model]
FORECASTS DEPENDS HEAVILY ON ENSO – BEING ALMOST ENTIRELY ASSOCIATED
WITH EITHER COLD OR WARM EPISODES. …
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/tools.html
I find it confusing that the NWS Climate Prediction Center issues
“climate” outlooks which have nothing to do with the subject of
climate change or global warming.
The NOAA NWS strategic plans use “Climate variability and Change”,
which I find to be confusing, even misleading to some. This is a
major federal agency with direct ties to local and national media,
local and state agencies, other federal agencies, and businesses
world wide. NOAA, NWS have the machinery to educate the public
about global waming. Why isn’t this working like it should?
People have a responsibility to learn what’s going on. They need to
know where to go to for advice about regional climate change and
global climate change / global warming. I think NWS, with their
many local offices and ties to media and local govs, need to be
educating the public on climate change, but that has not happened.
Why? Managers of government agencies that have the responsibility to
inform the public on safety and the environment are failing in their
duties.
Additional comments are in #41, above.
Pat N
“This seems to be the only field which seems to treat computer models as fact.” (#38)
Like Gavin said, nobody is treating computer models as fact, but computer simulation is a crucial part of several fields. For example, I believe that almost all electronic circuits these days are tested with computer models like this one before fabrication. Computational fluid dynamics simulations are important in aircraft design, among myriad other applications. Monte Carlo simulations of molecular behavior are apparently useful to many people. Naturally, no simulation is considered as good as the real thing, but “simulation” does not mean “nothing to do with the real world,” just as “theory” does not mean “idle speculation.”
Pat N:
Perhaps we can convince the CPC to produce products such as what the Canadians do, especially this feature.
Best,
D
Please consider a bit more on the topic of some people’s disapproval, in principle, of nonscientists presuming to write about science. (And please note, again, that I am not defending errors by Michael Crichton or George Will.) A Massachusetts Institute of Technology on-line publication has published a rebuttal of Crichton and Will that goes beyond attacking their errors of fact and reasoning to condemn as well their failure to be scientists. MIT’s Technology Review Tuesday Update for December 28 contained (in part via hyperlink) a brief commentary titled “Realclimate vs. Crichton.” The author, David Appell, name-calls Crichton “a mere science fiction novelist” and name-calls George Will Crichton’s “sycophant” and “no scientist either.” Appell’s commentary summarizes Gavin Schmidt’s RealClimate responses to both writers, condemns Crichton’s and Will’s errors, and ends by promising that why “the world is willing to pay attention to what novelists and political pundits think about the complex science behind global climate change is a subject for another day.” But right now, today, isn’t that willingness actually a basic reason for the present discussion? Here’s a question I’ve raised before, only this time expressed in two new ways:
* Whatever the errors of Crichton and Will, to what extent, if any, should nonscientist observers of human culture treat science uniquely — that is, in a way they treat no other aspect of culture — by abstaining from writing about it? To what extent would culture in general and science in particular be better off if nonscientist observers did abstain?
[Response: Non-experts are free to scrutinise any area of activity. What they shouldn’t do is attempt to pass off their analysis as expert. If Crichton had stopped at writing a pot-boiler, few would care. The problem is his aping of scientific method with the footnotes, whilst missing crucial aspects – like peer review, which would have removed his more blatant errors as chronicled here. The point is that Crichtons errors are not subtle: they are blatant. You can’t make mistakes like those by mistake. (Disclaimer: I haven’t read the book, I’m relying on whats here) – William]
* The Nobel physics laureate Leon Lederman, in his second career as an advocate of what some call “public science literacy,” has often wished publicly for a TV sitcom about scientists. That’s because he believes that in the long run, it’d be better to have polychromatic civic engagement of science than the monochromatic engagement advocated by those who believe that public discussion of science is rightfully the exclusive province of scientists. To what extent, if any, is Lederman right?
[Response: it might be fun – I’ve discussed it with colleagues over coffee – but no-one takes the idea seriously. William]
Dano,
I think the Canadian links you provided are good sites in explaining Climate Change to the public. The NWS Climate Prediction Center has not been tasked with studying or explaining climate change, but has been tasked with providing short term precip and temp outlooks for the U.S., monthly and seasonal. I would like to see the National Weather Service (NWS) provide information similar to that provided on the Canadian websites you provided in your message. But NWS could do more than provide website information. There are over 100 local NWS offices in the U.S., staffed with meteorologists and hydrologists that could be giving face to face presentations with discussions for high schools, local library public meetings and staffs with local government staffs. I think doing that would be a great public service. Why isn’t it being done? … two reasons … 1) NOAA Administrators and NWS directors have ordered employees not to talk to the public about global warming… saying it’s too political or too controversial. Those that speak out about global warming happening risk loosing there jobs. 2) The majority of those having meteological background in the U.S. are global warming skeptics… they don’t understand that global warming is happening yet they haven’t taken the time to investigate and see that it is, and their background in other earth sciences, including hydrology, is limited. Another group that should be looked at for doing more includes the regional and state climatologists offices… including the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC). State climatologists have background in meteorology and meteorological archiving, but their knowledge of paleoclimates and the disciplines involved in climate other than the atmosphere is limited. For example… they know little about hydrology, arctic sea ice, vegetation and transpiration processes, etc. Yet, because their title includes climate, the public perceives these “climatalogists” and meteorologists as good sources for information climate change/global warming, but they are truly lacking in that, in general. However, they convey the skeptic views on global warming to the media, local governments and other… usually off the record on an informal basis. Tax payer funded meteorolgist and mislabled climatologists should not be telling the public that there is no global warming problem… but in fact many of them have been doing that for many years already. When will that stop?
Pat N
George Will writes …could herald “a full-blown 10,000 year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). I attempted to look this up. There is no Science, March 1st, 1975. Can anyone gues what Will is referring to, assuming that he isn’t just making it up? “Science News” (p138, 107(9)) is a possibility, but I don’t have access to it. Anyone…?
[Update: Gavin found it for me (thanks Gavin!). It *is* from Science News not science. I will be posting on this “soon”]