Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt
The issues involved in science communication are complex and often seem intractable. We’ve seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (An Inconvenient Truth, Field Notes from a Catastrophe) and which won’t (The Eleventh Hour) is a tricky call. Mostly this is because we aren’t the target audience and so tend to rate popularizations by different criteria than lay people. Often, we just don’t ‘get it’.
Into this void has stepped Randy Olsen with his new book “Don’t be such a scientist”. For those who don’t know Randy, he’s a rather extraordinary individual – one of the few individuals who has run the gamut from hard-core scientist to Hollywood film maker. He’s walked the walk, and can talk the talk–and when he does talk, we should be listening!
While there may be some similarities in theme with “Unscientific America” by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum that we reviewed previously, the two books cover very different ground. They share the recognition that there is currently a crisis in area of scientific communication. But what makes “Don’t be such a Scientist” so unique is that Olsen takes us along on his own personal journey, recounting his own experiences as he made the transition from marine biologist to movie-maker, and showing us (rather than simply telling us–you can be sure that Randy would want to draw that distinction!) what he learned along the way. The book could equally well have been titled “Confessions of a Recovering Scientist”.
More than anything else, the book attempts to show us what the community is doing wrong in our efforts to communicate our science to the public. Randy doesn’t mince words in the process. He’s fairly blunt about the fact that even when we think we’re doing a good job, we generally aren’t. We have a tendency to focus excessively on substance, when it is often as if not more important, when trying to reach the lay public, to focus on style. In other words, it’s not just what you say, but how you say it.
This is a recurring theme in Randy’s work. His 2006 film, Flock of Dodos, showed, through a combination of humor and insightful snippets of reality, why evolutionary biologists have typically failed in their efforts to directly engage and expose the “intelligent design” movement. In his 2008 film Sizzle, he attempted the same thing with the climate change debate–an example that hits closer to home for us–in this case using more of a “mockumentary”-style format (think “Best in Show” with climate scientists instead of dogs) but with rather more mixed results. Randy makes the point that the fact that Nature panned it, while Variety loved it, underlines the gulf that still exists between the worlds of science and entertainment.
However, the book is not simply a wholesale, defeatist condemnation of our efforts to communicate. What Randy has to say may be tough to hear, but its tough love. He provides some very important lessons on what works and what doesn’t, and they ring true to us in our own experience with public outreach. In short, says Randy: Tell a good story; Arouse expectations and then fulfill them; Don’t be so Cerebral; And, last but certainly not least: Don’t be so unlikeable (i.e. don’t play to the stereotype of the arrogant, dismissive academic or the nerdy absent-minded scientist). Needless to say, it’s easy for us to see our own past mistakes and flaws in Randy’s examples. And while we might quibble with Randy on some details (for example, An Inconvenient Truth didn’t get to be the success it was because of its minor inaccuracies), the basic points are well taken.
The book is not only extremely insightful and full of important lessons, it also happens to be funny and engaging, self-effacing and honest. We both agree that this book is a must read for anyone who cares about science, and the problems we have engaging the public.
If the book has a flaw, it might be the seemingly implicit message that scientists all need to take acting or comedy lessons before starting to talk – though the broader point that many of us could use some pointers in effective communication is fair. More seriously, the premise of the book is rooted in perhaps somewhat of a caricature of what a scientist is (you know, cerebral, boring, arrogant and probably unkempt). This could be seen merely as a device, but the very fact that we are being told to not be such scientists, seems at times to reinforce the stereotype (though to be fair, Randy’s explanation of the title phrase does show it to be a bit more nuanced than might initially meet the eye). Shouldn’t we instead be challenging the stereotype? And changing what it means to the public to be a scientist? Maybe this will happen if scientists spend more time not being so like stereotypical scientists – but frankly there are a lot of those atypical scientists already and the cliches still abound.
When it comes to making scientists better communicators, Greg Craven’s book “What’s the worst that can happen?” demonstrates how it can actually be done. Craven is a science teacher and is very upfront about his lack of climate science credentials but equally upfront about his role in helping normal people think about the issue in a rational way. Craven started off making YouTube videos explaining his points and this book is a further development of those including responses to many of the critiques he got originally.
Craven’s excellent use of video to discuss the implications of the science is neatly paired with the work that Peter Sinclair is doing with his “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series. Both use arresting graphics and straightforward explanations to point out what the science really says, how the contrarians distort and misinform and take some pleasure in pointing out the frequent incoherence that passes for commentary at sites like WUWT.
Crucially, neither Craven nor Sinclair are scientists, but they are excellent communicators of science. Which brings up a point raised by both Mooney & Kirshenbaum and Olsen – what role should working scientists play in improving communications to the public? Video editing and scriptwriting (and even website design!) is probably best left to people who know how to do these things effectively, while content and context needs to be informed directly by the scientists themselves. To our mind this points to enhanced cooperation among communicators and scientists as the dominant model we should be following. We don’t all need to become film directors to make a difference!
#267 Matthew L.
I have a climate communication plan, and have been looking for a budget for years now. I have had no luck as yet in finding that budget.
I think we can end the argument in 6 months to a year (arrogant as that may seem) in the public debate given the needed budget. But without a communication budget that will do the trick, this will not happen.
If you happen to know some wealthy person or organization that is willing to endow such a project, please do let me know.
http://ossfoundation.com/contact-info
And no, I will not reveal the methodology of the plan as that would reduce the effect of the plan implementation. Loose lips sink ships. It is a good plan though.
#273 Rod B
Why are you still hung up on the short term and looking at things out of context?
The graphs were there exclusively to point out why you should not look at trends under 30 years.
And btw, even when looking at trends that are 30+ years, you must have consideration of the attribution.
Hank #283, the chart has temp change to 2008 expressed as a function of starting year; expressed as a function of the length of the time series, the x axis would increase from 0 to 24 years to the right. I’m glad I’m not the only one who gets vertigo from charts like that, though.
I know this is your blog, and therefore you can do what you like, but snipping large chunks from posts during “moderation” is a bit unfair. I am sure *you* know all about the data sets, obviously, but not every other reader of these comments does, and your original resonse to my post seemed to suggest that *I* didn’t. I see now that I misunderstood your questions, for which I apologise. You could simply have left the original post as it was and made the comment without the snips.
[Response: “See the stock market has gone up every year for a decade. I just don’t see how it could suddenly change and lose 50% in a month” or “See our fish catches have gone up every year for a decade, what do you mean their closing the fishery because there are none left”. – gavin]
Spot on. These examples are classic cases of academics and scientists failing to communicate the risks associated with the current behaviour of ther subjects. This is not a failing of science, it is a failing of communication. I am not saying it is their fault, but maybe scientists need to concentrate more on communication now if these kinds of mistakes are to be avoided? Is that not the message of the article we are commenting on?
As someone carrying out valuations of financial and real estate investments for the last 30 years I am fully aware of how models that “project the past” can go horribly wrong. In the UK we also have to stand helplessly by while huge Spanish trawllers, sanctioned by the EU “common fisheries policy”, scour the seabed around our shores for every last scrap of marine life.
[not that you are interested – but others might be] I am a conservationist at heart, and have been since being a member of the “Young Naturalists” (patron Gavin Maxwell – author of Ring of Bright Water) 1970 – 74. I have crawled on my belly across sand dunes on the Scilly Isles with a Kodak Instamatic to get a glimpse of a stray Snowy Owl. I have helped clear ditches and plant trees. I am a member of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (founder Sir Peter Scott, who also founded WWF) and the Royal Society for the Protction of Birds – the biggest conservation group in the UK. I sit by muddy ponds at 5 in the morning taking pictures of Kingfishers with big lenses as a hobby. My favourite charity is the UK Woodland Trust.
I have replaced every lightbulb in our house with hideous energy saving ones (much to my wife’s chagrin). I have installed at vast and uneconomic expense a solar hot water heating system (my pride and joy!). Lagged the loft with so much irritating fibreglass that it is unusable as storage. I have got rid of one of our two cars, and replaced the other, 25mpg, model with a diesel that averages 45mpg. I keep talking about cycling to work.. but never actually get round to it, unlike many of my friends.
I am a concerned member of the public, I carry no denialist agenda and I slightly resent the charge that I “ladel out contrarian talking points”. Any talking points I have raised have been my own observations on published data. I am on your side Gavin, stop trying to turn me to the “dark side”.
[Response: Curious. I don’t recall ever having said any such things. This can’t possibly be another strawman caricature masquerading as concern for our well being can it? – gavin]
Hmm… maybe not you Gavin, but that is the overwhelming impression from the comments on this blog. You need to have a pretty thick skin to dare to question a scientist here.
[Response: You are completely missing the point. There are indeed many scientists here you can question. But you are best off doing that by actually asking questions rather than by making insinuations. If we didn’t want to engage with people, we wouldn’t bother to have to a blog. – gavin]
CM, my recollection is that ENSO adjustments for temperature trends is rather common regardless of if being used for attribution or not. I am, as always, willing to be corrected.
CM, if you weren’t complaining about how he said it then you were complaining about what he said. I don’t see a third choice available. The statement “it has not warmed in the last ten years” seems a fairly legitimate one to me at this point. It has a reference from a reputable source. The argument would have to be over the accuracy of the source not the accuracy of the people making the comment based on the source.
Perhaps within the context of the entire conversation it may have been helpful to stipulate that it was within the variations of climate models. Typically I would not have felt the need to do so, did not see the need to do so, and so didn’t.
#300 John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)
“Add the forcing component and the atmospheric lifetime of Co2”. So, what is the atmospheric lifetime of CO2? How do you know this?
“The feedbacks will most likely magnify in response to the continued warming and thus push the numbers up at various tipping points.” What numbers? What various tipping points?
“When AGW reaches a certain point, we pay the price”. What certain point?
#304 Matthew L.
You have been making more statements that have been obtuse “insinuations” in nature if not outright bizarre in form, or largely off base. It may be your writing style but you can clean that up.
Maybe you should start asking more questions rather than claims based on, something you read on the internets.
And in reality, this is going to get more difficult and expensive to manage the longer we wait. 20% by 2020 has not even been agreed upon and it is not going to be enough, though a step in the right direction.
Any and all delays make it more challenging. Get up to speed and help. You don’t want to hear drama and you say drama is getting in the way?
So, time is money; chop, chop; let’s get moving; hurry now, we’re gonna be late…
There are nearly 6.8 billion people on this planet. As it unfolds, we will all be affected by this. People will die, people will starve, there will be conflicts over resources, there will be more floods, droughts, fires, heavy snow storms burying towns, there is already an increase in hurricane strength, and due to mans interest in living near the ocean, so has been raised the cost of such disasters.
So I’m curious, where are the scientists being overly dramatic with their predictions of a possible 5 C temperature rise? Anyone that understands what that means, understands that it translates to all of the above, over time, unless meaningful mitigation and adaptation measures are put in place. And even then, we don’t get out of this unscathed.
Yes it needs to be communicated, but it needs an organized mechanism if we are to achieve meaningful penetration of the public mind. Let’s just keep hoping that happens, though as I have said, I have not been able to achieve it and I’m trying pretty darn hard.
As far as thick skin, you don’t have to have thick skin if you are anonymous, as you are. Your words don’t reflect on you because you are anonymous, so what are you worried about.
CM, to illustrate the use of correcting for ENSO. If someone came on here and had prepared a graph drawing a line from the top of the 98 el nino to the bottom of the 08 la nina and claiming this represented the change in the temperature, how many people would they have yelling at them?
If you go back and look at my original post (#226) I really don’t think I am accusing anybody of anything very much other than despairng of the “tone” of the debate, the polariztion of views and the defensive stance of many commentators on this, and other, blogs. By commentators I mean the people posting comments, not necessarily the owners of the blog. Sorry if I gave any other impression.
The questions I did have relating to both the recent flatter trend in temperatures and the apparent “recovery” (for want of a better word) in sea ice, have been very well answered here, particularly by the very polite and tolerant Messers Reisman and Verheggen. Thanks for listening and bothering to reply with civility guys. Your web site is now in my favourites list Mr R. Sorry I have not had time to answer all your very pertinent questions – just take it that I have read (most of) the links you posted, thanks.
I still think these two apparently “contrarian” indicators need to be properly addressed by scientists in the media. They are obvious to anybody who cares to look at the data sources, and simply ignoring them or dismissing them in a few words as statistical noise just leaves the field open to the deniers to jump on them as evidence that AGW is somehow disproved.
The general public are not as stupid as you might think. Most of us are more than capable of understanding error bars and ranges of uncertainty in a trend.
I am ashamed of my half-hearted attempt at claiming to be a scientist [blush]. I suppose all I wanted to do was not be talked down to, or patronised, and I rescinded the claim at the earliest opportunity.
I think as an ordinary member of the public asking honest questions I should be entitled to remain anonymous. If I pretended any expertise in this field, or had written papers that needed peer review, then I would do so. If you Googled my surname it would throw up nothing more interesting than my biography on my employer’s web site and some inane comments on sites dealing with my main hobby – photography. My wife, however, would not be pleased to see the characterisation of her I have posted here. For that reason alone I won’t be posting my surname!
Anyway, I have given enough biographical detail here that anybody reading this who knows me would realise who I am. Matthew is my real first name and L is the first initial of my real surname.
I’m “skeptical” of the denialist claims that they are “winning the debate,” and feel that we tend to over-estimate their influence because we consistently expose ourselves to it. And there’s certainly some evidence to support this idea, for example:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=52044
Don’t know how much this was a “push poll,” but then you don’t know that about contrary results, either.
Anecdotally, it seems to me that “non-enthusiasts” of AGW are often more tired of the clamor than anything else. Many are well aware of the Faux-news nutsiness, and turned off by it–even if they are to some extent influenced by Faux-news content. They end up as soft supporters of mitigation action, if only because they rely on the commonsensical notion that pumping a bunch of anything into the atmosphere is probably not a good idea.
Bottom line, I think we need to keep putting the facts out there, and avoid useless hand-wringing.
Matthew L.,
There are plenty of us who are willing to try and help you understand.
You mention the risks of trying to “project the past”. That is one of the reasons why climate modeling is done with so-called “dynamic models”. That means that the researchers actually put in the physics rather than doing statistical models based on past performance. Dynamical models are much less likely to go drastically wrong, because it is unlikely that future climates will be dominated by physical mechanisms not experienced in the past.
Please realize, Matthew, that you are not stepping onto virgin territory. Climate change has been a war zone for over 20 years now–with the scientists firmly on one side and the energy interests opposing them. And many on the pro-science side are veterans of the campaign against creationism and Big Tobacco, too. Whether it is fair or not, it is not unnatural to make assumptions about a poster’s allegiances (science vs. anti-science) based on the tenor of his posts.
#310
Kevin McKinney raises an interesting point concerning the “winning” of the debate by “skeptics”.
I’m interested in doing a post on this subject, in the form of a competition between the leading PR spin doctors, i.e. Marc Morano for the U.S., Tom Harris for Canada and Max Rheese for Australia.
So far, when I’ve looked at polls longitudinally (i.e. the same question and methodology over the last few years), I see a decline in public support for the AGW scientific consensus, and also a decline in support for government regulation of greenhouse gases, since the peak in 2007. (Sorry don’t have the refs immediately at hand).
That doesn’t mean the contrarians are “winning” in terms of garnering majority support for their position, but they may be making enough progress to forestall meaningful action.
Matthew L: I am convinced that global warming is taking place, but like many bemused citizens find the evidence for CO2 as the primary cause to be patchy at best.
BPL: Which of the following do you dispute?
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. CO2 is rising.
3. The increase is mainly from burning fossil fuels.
4. Climate feedbacks amplify the warming from CO2.
5. No other source of the warming is plausible.
If it’s #5 you’re embracing, please give the evidence behind the mechanism you favor. And explain why the greenhouse effect stops working when CO2 increases.
#313 Barton, why wouldn’t your 3 just say “The increase is mainly from natural warming”?
stevenc: The statement “it has not warmed in the last ten years” seems a fairly legitimate one to me at this point.
BPL: What part of “the World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global temperature over a period of 30 years or more” do you not understand?
Ten years tells you nothing about climate change. Zip. Nada.
Deep Climate,
Keep in mind that the economic turmoil has people more focused on pocketbook issues. We in the reality-based community have to keep emphasizing the science, which, despite the opinions of many politicians, does not change with public opinion.
Simon
Barton is referring to the increase in CO2, not temperature in #3, which is undeniably due to fossil fuel consumption.
It is impossible to educate with facts a person, whose conviction is based on faith. This is evident with the creationists, but also with the climate change deniers. In this thread we have good examples of such deniers, who have learned nothing during recent years inspite of thousands of attemps. Same inane denier opinions are repeated again and again and again.
In blogs, which are moderated by the scientists (Real Climate, Open Mind etc.) such claims are are promptly corrected and the untrue view will not prevail. Here it is possible to learn new scientific facts on climate. On the other hand, those blogs, where comments are not moderated or the moderation is done by other criteria, are rapidly flooded by crap comments. Those blogs no more educate, but turn into just another denier site.
Keep up good work, guys!
Barton, there is a difference between accurate and meaningful. I would be unlikely to be on the meaningful side of the ten year discussion should that have been the discussion’s topic. Not based on the 30 year definition of climate however since the NOAA states that 15 years of no warming would place the models in a difficult statistical position. My argument would be that with a prolonged solar minimum and a cooling PDO it is only logical the lower limit of the models would be tested. I understand there is some dispute if 15 years is long enough or not and I am not prepared to argue for or against this time period. That is for the experts to argue out.
# 306 J. Reisman
“there is already an increase in hurricane strength”
Is this now a fact?
#314 simon monckton
Because there is no attribution or mechanism to explain the warming without GHG’s…
… or did you find one? if so please do explain the warming with what you have found?
#316 Rando
You tell me?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=140
The data set is referenced on the bottom of the image.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/hurdatTAB.txt
#313 BPL
Noting previous comments on my posting style, and accepting that my grasp of the science is “patch at best”, perhaps you would not mind me responding to some of your questions with some of my own. I know this is all stuff science has covered before, so by all means answer by pointing me at appropriate studies / sources if you don’t have the time to answer directly.
>1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No dispute there. Somebody has already pointed to a source stating that circa 3 deg of warming comes from a doubling of CO2. Unfortunately the link posted was broken. Is this verified anywhere else?
>2. CO2 is rising.
Obvious from measurements.
>3. The increase is mainly from burning fossil fuels.
I declare serious ignorance here, and have read much conflicting information. So perhaps you can help me understand;
– What is the total stock of CO2 in the atmosphere?
– How much as a percentage of this each year do the total emissions from human sources represent?
– How much CO2 each year is “recycled” in the carbon cycle?
– Are we sure that human sources adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a directly additive process? In other words what is the annual increase in total atmospheric CO2, and how does this compare with the total human emissions?
– Is it possible that human sources are swamped / absorbed / mitigated by the natural cycle of carbon into and out of the sea and terrestrial life forms?
4. Climate feedbacks amplify the warming from CO2.
– I understand that there are positive feedback mechanisms (warm seas emitting more CO2 etc). However, can we completely discount that there may be negative feedbacks too? A common one cited is increased cloud cover as the warm seas evaporate more water.
5. No other source of the warming is plausible.
– All heat in our climate (barring a tiny contribution from the earth’s core) comes from the sun. How much effect on the earth’s climate comes from variations in the output of the sun?
– How does this compare with the forcing effect from changes in CO2?
Looking at the graph on the following site:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact4.html
There does seem to be some correlation between the warming of the sun since 1900 and the warming of the earth over the same time period. Is that just my imagination?
The sun seems to be declining in output;
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
is this significant to global warming?
Thanks for your help.
Because that would be a false statement, clearly CO2 is rising primarily due to our massive burning of fossil fuels.
re #316,
Re increase in hurricane strength. Yes that’s what the evidence indicates Rando. Specifically the numbers of high category tropical storms has increased according to quite a few analyses published in the last few years:
e.g.:
Elsner, JB et al (2008) The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones. Nature 455, 92-95.
Emanual K (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the last 30 years Nature 436, 696-688.
S. B. Goldenberg, C. W. Landsea, A. M. Mestas-Nuñez, W. M. Gray (2001) The Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications
Science 293, 474 – 479
C. D. Hoyos et al. (2006) Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity Science 312 94 – 97.
Barnett, T. P. et al (2005) Penetration of human-induced warming into the world’s oceans Science, 309, 284–287.
Elsner JB (2006) Evidence in support of the climate change – Atlantic hurricane hypothesis Geophysical Research Letters 33 L16705
K. E. Trenberth and D. J. Shea (2006) Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005 Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 33, L12704
#321 John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation)
John – you might like to comment on the following – simon
(Perhaps it can be dismissed out of hand as Big Oil propaganda).
“In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure to define and determine the RT (Residency Time) in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. With the short RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources, but is due to natural factors. This supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven.
Quoted from: climateresearchnews.com/…/atmospheric-residence-time-of-man-made-co2/
Sorry, my mistake. I see it´s dated 1 April.
I assume you will be posting soon on the new ice melt readings published in Nature.
The British estimate that Antarctica is losing 30 feet PER YEAR since 2003 in some places, which by my estimate means that we lose all of that ice within 150 to 200 years. Since there is little to no hope that we can actually cause the planet to cool in that time frame, and thermal inertia being what it is, this seems to indicate that the massive sea level rises suggest by AIT are quite real and will be upon us quite soon, with no – I repeat, no – mechanism for halting or reversing the event. In fact, I’m sure we would all agree that the rate of ice loss will only accelerate in the decades ahead.
This would seem to mean that adaptation must be the primary focus of any efforts to deal with AGW, and it would seem to mean that we have a generation or two, at most, to come up with viable options.
That’s like the day after tomorrow, when you think about it.
The CO2 issue can serve as a litmus test for the sources you read, because any source that claims that observed CO2 increases aren’t due to our massive burning of fossil fuels is being outright dishonest.
And therefore safely ignored.
If you’re interested in the scientific argument, read this Real Climate piece from four years ago.
It’s not in doubt. Not in the least. Those who claim it is are simply lying to you.
Matthew L., have you clicked the “Start Here” button at the top of the page? Have you read Spencer Weart’s history — the first link under Science on the right sidebar?
If so, you can refer to specific points in those that you don’t understand. That would help greatly.
If you haven’t read the basics, then you are asking people to retype material well covered in those FAQ answers — answers that have been carefully worked over to get them right and clear. None of us can retype the very clearest answer off the top of our heads to the basic frequently asked questions and do as well for you as you can do for yourself by reading the FAQ files.
If you want the very shortest summary, you could read the list here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
and then refer to the FAQs.
Or just google “John Mashey” +climate (grin) and he’ll lead you to the nearest source of water that can slake your thirst.
Matthew L. #323, I suggest you have a good hard look at the IPCC report, WG1, to be found at http://www.ipcc.ch . It’s a big read so be selective at first read, but the kind of questions you’re asking tells me that you might be ready for it.
Simon #326-7, Aprils’ Fools would be a nice explanation but sadly the track record suggests he actually means it. It’s been discussed before. It’s a silly place – let’s not go there.
Matthew L. — At the top of the page is a “Start Here” button. Click it to start there regarding basic climatology. That too will lead you to “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, which once again I encourage you to read.
Matthew L.,
The link I gave earlier for climate sensitivity being 3 deg is
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
simon solicits comments on a paper: “In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure to define and determine the RT (Residency Time) in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. With the short RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources, but is due to natural factors. This supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven.”
The last two statements are a nonsequitur. The referee of the paper was not competent enough to catch it, or careless.
#327 simon monckton
How apropos.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/08/atmospheric-residence-time-of-man-made-co2/
As I understand it, that is big coal paying for that one, not big oil, but I could be wrong. It had been discussed though and I doubt anyone wants to backtrack.
I go along with CM in #332. It may be a truly ironic coincidence but I do think they want people to believe it. At least here on RealClimate, they play it up on April 1.
I had a guy at a power company repeat it to me this year. I almost would believe that they did on April 1 just so they could say later, if anyone called them on it, April Fools.
#323 Matthew L.
Also, the isotopic signature is different for natural Co2 v. fossil fuels.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused
Beware when the Belligerent Troll becomes a Concern Troll.
There be hippogriffs.
Reference 316:
“BPL: What part of “the World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global temperature over a period of 30 years or more” do you not understand?
Ten years tells you nothing about climate change. Zip. Nada.”
I find BPL to be unnecessarily snarky. I think the statement “it has not warmed more in the last 10 years” is perfectly reasonable because global temperatures have been nearly flat within error bars for the last 10 years.
Furthermore, if 10 years tells you nothing about climate change, how do we know that 30 years does? Why not 100 or 1000 years as some others have claimed? What justification does BPL have that 30 years is the right time “scale” with which to look at climate? Can someone illuminate me on this using scientific evidence, rather than just saying it is based upon some society’s “authoritative” statement?
#323 Matthew L.
I provided some links below re. your inquiries. Pages on the OSS site have links in the text and usually ref links at the bottom of the page:
3. The increase is mainly from burning fossil fuels.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/greenhouse-gases
Humans add around 7 to 8 billion tons of Co2 to the atmosphere each year.
The recycled carbon is around 4ppm breathed in and out each year.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/keeling-curves
The amount of fossil fuel burned generally correlates with the Co2 increase.
On negative feedbacks, there is the iris hypothesis, you can read a bit about it here
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/richard-lindzen
there is a link to the Lindzen home page with his publications there also.
The output of the sun adds and takes away .2 W/m2
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/solar
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/its-the-sun
But the forcing is 1.6W/m2 above natural cycle (IPCC), which once you understand the reference point and the difference between that and an ice age gives you perspective. An ice age is around -3.4 W/m2 and an interglacial is around thermal equilibrium or 0.0 W/m2 give or take a .1 or .2 depending on the cycle. But in reality the positive forcing could be around 3.6 W/m2 positive because mad made aerosol pollutants are causing a negative forcing. SO we are pretty out of whack.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/forcing-levels
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
This chart I believe is from NASA GISS and is one of my favorites to see the variance of forcing from natural cycle. I will have to relocate the source though as I just noticed I don’t have the source link in the ref.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png/image_view_fullscreen
As far as solar output affecting warming you need to understand how much forcing you get from that variance. The ref links above will give you the context. A drop in solar output would be wonderful so let’s hope it happens, but it only takes away. 0.2 W/m2 so it’s not enough to stop the warming. It would help though so I’m keeping my fingers crossed since there is no real way to predict that behavior.
Dan Wang (339) — Thirty or more years comes from statistical analysis of the historical records. There is more about this over at Tamino’s “Open Mind” blog.
#339 Dan Wang
I find posts that say BPL is unnecessarily snarky, to be snarky.
Furthermore, the reason 30 years tells you more that 10 years is because the science can separate the signal form the noise on longer time scales.
Some society??? The World Meteorological Organization/OMM. Some Society???
http://www.wmo.int
Look before you leap.
and the WMO is not the only ‘some society’ that looks at climate generally as 30+ years
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
And of course you have not been following the conversation and just dropped by to say 10 years are important
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-stopped
Dan Wang’s question is asymmetric:”Furthermore, if 10 years tells you nothing about climate change, how do we know that 30 years does? Why not 100 or 1000 years as some others have claimed? What justification does BPL have that 30 years is the right time “scale” with which to look at climate? Can someone illuminate me on this using scientific evidence, rather than just saying it is based upon some society’s “authoritative” statement?”
Are you also asking those who claim 10 or 100 or 1000 years (whoever they are)?
“http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html” gives an excellent explanation.
> how do we know that 30 years does?
Good question — one that has been frequently asked (and answered). The answer is in doing the math, which is taught in Statistics 101 and also online, e.g. here:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/search?q=trends
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html
#339 Dan Wang
I suggest you play around with the graphs at Wood For Trees so you can see for yourself.
Start with mean annual temperatures from the two main temperature records. Notice that there is a lot of noise about the overall trend.
Now compare that with 10-year averages. There is a lot less noise in this graph, so you can start to say something about the longer term trends.
Now look at the 30-year averages.
Push that out to 100-year averages, and you now have eliminated almost all of the noise, and approximate the linear trend (although note how you reduce the time series in doing so).
So you can see, there has to be a balance between eliminating inter-annual noise and showing trends. This topic has been discussed on this site many times in the past, for example here, so have a read, and if you still have questions come back later.
John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) (340) — Oops! Humans burn about 7 billion tonnes of carbon per year, resulting in (44/12)*7 = 25.7 billion tonnes of CO2.
#246 David B. Benson
Oops. I will have to dig more into the industrial carbon output data and sinks anyway. It’s always a learning experience and I’m always looking for input…
…and links are always appreciated ;)
Use the source Luke…
Study: ‘Runaway’ melt on Antarctica, Greenland:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32985250/ns/us_news-environment/
To add to Mr. Benson’s reference on thinning ice in Antarctica, here is a reference to the British Antarctic Survey press release:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=989
I have spent the last half and hour staring at side by side images from
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/AntarcticBedrock.jpg
and from the BAS:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/images/press/989/pritchard_etal_antarc_plus_.jpg
The “Runaway” story is probably referring to:
Letter
Nature 461, 385-388 (17 September 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08355; Received 5 January 2009; Accepted 24 July 2009
Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262
/abs/nature08355.html
The abstract there ends “… our new temperature history reveals a pronounced Holocene climatic optimum in Greenland coinciding with maximum thinning near the GIS margins…. corroborated by the air content of ice cores, a proxy for surface elevation7. State-of-the-art ice sheet models are generally found to be underestimating the extent and changes in GIS elevation and area; our findings may help to improve the ability of models to reproduce the GIS response to Holocene climate.”