Continuation of the open thread. Please use these threads to bring up things that are creating ‘buzz’ rather than having news items get buried in comment threads on more specific topics. We’ll promote the best responses to the head post.
Knorr (2009): Case in point, Knorr (GRL, 2009) is a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly), led in no small part by a misleading headline (subsequently fixed) on the ScienceDaily news item Update: MT/AH point out the headline came from an AGU press release (Sigh…). SkepticalScience has a good discussion of the details including some other recent work by Le Quéré and colleagues.
Update: Some comments on the John Coleman/KUSI/Joe D’Aleo/E. M. Smith accusations about the temperature records. Their claim is apparently that coastal station absolute temperatures are being used to estimate the current absolute temperatures in mountain regions and that the anomalies there are warm because the coast is warmer than the mountain. This is simply wrong. What is actually done is that temperature anomalies are calculated locally from local baselines, and these anomalies can be interpolated over quite large distances. This is perfectly fine and checkable by looking at the pairwise correlations at the monthly stations between different stations (London-Paris or New York-Cleveland or LA-San Francisco). The second thread in their ‘accusation’ is that the agencies are deleting records, but this just underscores their lack of understanding of where the GHCN data set actually comes from. This is thoroughly discussed in Peterson and Vose (1997) which indicates where the data came from and which data streams give real time updates. The principle one is the CLIMAT updates of monthly mean temperature via the WMO network of reports. These are distributed by the Nat. Met. Services who have decided which stations they choose to produce monthly mean data for (and how it is calculated) and is absolutely nothing to do with NCDC or NASA.
Further Update: NCDC has a good description of their procedures now available, and Zeke Hausfather has a very good explanation of the real issues on the Yale Forum.
CORRECTION
I stated:
… but had broken the links in the above comment. They have been fixed in this comment.
On terminology (from a weblog I’m coming to think highly of)
“Acronym Required observes science and technology.”
http://acronymrequired.com/2010/01/haiti-ozone-epa-plos-open-access.html
— excerpt follows —-
In 2005, physicist Lisa Randall urged that “global climate change” was the appropriate phrase to use, because “global warming” would lead people to argue that their winter was actually very cold. Others argued that “climate change” sounded less dangerous, so therefore would be used to manipulate people who would be fearful enough about “global warming” to urge policy changes, whereas “climate change” seemed benign. But it gets even more complicated for some agencies. NASA differentiates between “global warming”, which is surface climate change, and “climate change”, and “global change”, and “global climate change”, which deems the most accurate term. I think everyone pretty much knows what everyone’s talking about now, though I dare not make conclusions about that.
—- end excerpt —-
Congratulations to physicist Lisa Randall–got that right!
Timothy Chase says: 16 January 2010 at 5:33 PM
Documentation of industrial deception campaigns including the one at play here is indeed numerous and meticulous, established as fact. Ignoring that while fantasizing about corrupt scientists is one of the features I find most astonishing about the doubter community.
It turns out there’s an entire website dedicated to performing weird scholarship (if you care to use that term) on a bunch of largely archaic email. The scholars or monks or whatever you care to call them preoccupy themselves with parsing their scrolls for willow-the-wisps, signs and portents they imagine reveal the dark psychology of various scientific investigators. The fact that their source texts were purloined apparently only adds to the allure.
Meanwhile there’s a multi-trillion dollar motivation for deception staring them in the face, amply documented and entirely beyond debate. That’s of no interest, presumably failing in the romance department. “Hardy Boys Mysteries” are no fun if there’s no mystery.
Just goes to show, with over 6.5 billion on the planet and a wonderful communications channel open to participation by all we’ll find every sort of arcane niche packed with enthusiasts.
David Wright — The basic scientific discoveries, including some mistaken views which eventually fell by the wayside, was over quite some time ago. You can read the history in “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
David Wright says, ” I remain skeptical that the data is being properly applied and that models are appropriate forecasting tools (as it is being applied for public climate policy). I’m all for research.”
Ah! Which data? We have 2 independent terrestrial data sets and two independent satellite data sets–and they all pretty much agree on trends, etc. We have huge amounts of ice loss. We have phenological data. And all the data paint a consistent picture of a warming planet. Is it your contention that ALL of these data are being misused? Do you have any idea of how unlikely it would be to achieve a consistent picture if this were true?
David Wright again, “IMHO the public in general will continue to be more and more skeptical until renowned scientists such as yourself publicly discuss the methods of your field in some sort of neutral forum.”
OK, now explain something to me. Just how is the National Academy of Sciences not a neutral forum? How about the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical society and about a dozen other professional organizations for scientists–not one of which have dissented from the consensus position? I could go on,… and on and on and on, in fact, but for brevity’s sake, I hope this will suffice.
Now, as to debate, the problem is that a scientist must debate scientifically–using evidence, careful interpretation and statistics to make his case. Anti-scence–and sorry, David, but climate denialism is anti-science–need do nothing of the sort. They can hack email servers, take emails and quotes and data out of context, spread lies and calumny, even physically threaten, because their goal is not understanding but rather undermining science. The scientists are playing baseball, the anti-science types are playing Calvin-ball. Even Richard Lindzen sees fit to make arguments he knows to be unphysical to lay audiences.
Until there is a common set of rules, I don’t see how there can be debate, and until both sides understand the science, I don’t see how there can be a common set of rules.
So my suggestion, David, is that you make an effort to learn the science. Start with the Start Here button and maybe read Spencer Weart’s History. Ask QUESTIONS. The see if you understand why scientists are concerned.
Hank Roberts wrote in 986:
If I might attempt a definition of septic as it is used in this context: of or relating to arguments that are put forward under the pretense of rational skepticism but which are in fact arguments that are so old and that have been addressed so many times they are no longer an element of rational, public discourse but of its putrefaction.
Completely Fed Up says:
16 January 2010 at 7:53 AM
NOTE: if Sweden is going up 1cm/year then over the last 12000 years, it would have gone up 120m.
I don’t think it has.
Therefore there’s some large delay for isostatic rebound that is somewhat analogous to internal friction and inertia. A delay of some thousands of years to get to full speed, at least.
Well contrary to your personal incredulity that’s about the number that those who work on this subject use (as much as 200m).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4183HR0-4&_user=1082852&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1168945787&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000051401&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1082852&md5=bcc55f29973f9e14c938f46658553c9e
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/131/3/323
Celsius in the 18th century reported a rise of 8 feet over 168 years in Sweden, about the same time Linnaeus reported a sequence of 77 ridges (ancient shore lines) near a part of the Baltic.
The oldest documentary evidence was a request by a port in Sweden (in 1491) to move their town because:
“During recent years the land has grown outside the
town at the sea so that where, some years ago, a small
cargo boat could come from the sea into the town of
Osthammar not even a fishing-boat can go nowadays.
And the land is still growing and rising every year.”
[Response: Indeed, total uplift since the LGM reaches 800m in places. – gavin]
993 wrote: “I looked at him and said, “Climate change is easy. Predicting climate change is you turn up the heat on the pot you’re cooking and you predict that it gets hotter. Predicting weather is predicting how the temperature changes with time everywhere in the pot.”
This appears to be a septic argument in reverse.
If by reverse you mean fundamentally correct as opposed to the blatant BS that most of the skeptics spew, then yes it is a “septic arguement in reverse”.
OK, thanks to everyone for responding. Many responses appear to me as mirror images of those seen on “contrarian denier” sites. If I had to venture a guess, about 60% of posters are non-scientists who know as little as I do about atmospheric physics.
There are way too many rebuttals for me to respond to given my limited knowledge.
There is one who appears quite knowledgeable to whom I’ll risk a retort.
Quoting Ray:
“Now, as to debate, the problem is that a scientist must debate scientifically–using evidence, careful interpretation and statistics to make his case. Anti-scence–and sorry, David, but climate denialism is anti-science–need do nothing of the sort. They can hack email servers, take emails and quotes and data out of context, spread lies and calumny, even physically threaten, because their goal is not understanding but rather undermining science. The scientists are playing baseball, the anti-science types are playing Calvin-ball. Even Richard Lindzen sees fit to make arguments he knows to be unphysical to lay audiences.
Until there is a common set of rules, I don’t see how there can be debate, and until both sides understand the science, I don’t see how there can be a common set of rules.
So my suggestion, David, is that you make an effort to learn the science. Start with the Start Here button and maybe read Spencer Weart’s History. Ask QUESTIONS. The see if you understand why scientists are concerned.”
I can only restate that if you desire a response from the public, such as additional taxation in order to combat the problem, then you will have to convince them that the issue is truly as serious as you say. To most folks, Al Gore is a laughingstock, but he is unfortunately the one who first approched the public. He remains the most public proponent of the issue.
Surely scientist should not be reduced to public relations agents, but they are typically educators involved in propogating knowledge. I have seen many fine lecture programs available over the internet through universities such as MIT where complex scientific topics are discussed in greater detail than your typical rotary meeting. Even though some of the terminology goes over the layman’s head, he may still gain a greater, if not a holistic understanding of the subject matter. You have this from the horse’s mouth.
I propose that a traveling debate series might be negotiated among the more prominent institutions, be broadcast over the internet using strict debate practices. They challenge one another on the gridiron, why not the intellectual equivalent? Perhaps the public would take a greater interest in science (something we soreley need) if it felt that it were included, and perhaps even particiapated in portions of the debate. Indeed, as Ray says, a common set of rules would be essential to the success of such an endeavor. Perhaps the initial debates could be directed toward establishing such common rules such as what is hard science and what is debateable.
Our society is long overdue for some sort of cultural renaissance, and I for one believe that the fields of science have the greatest potential for bringing us just such a reawakening. We certainly have the means to communicate, now all we need is the courage to take advantage of it.
Re:1007 Phil Felton says:
“… that’s about the number that those who work on this subject use (as much as 200m).”
Simplified Wikipedia article discusses post-glacial rebound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
scroll to: Isostatic rebound
“This rise of a part of the crust is due to an isostatic adjustment. A large mass, such as an ice sheet/glacier, depresses the crust of the Earth and displaces the mantle below. The depression is about a third the thickness of the ice sheet. After the glacier melts the mantle begins to flow back to its original position pushing the crust back to its original position. This post-glacial rebound, which lags melting of the ice sheet/glacier, is currently occurring in measurable amounts in Scandinavia and the Great Lakes region of North America.”
See also:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Glacier_weight_effects_LMB.png
Note the arrows coming in from the sides as Martin Vermeer suggested.
And I was in such hopes our little experiment with the Jello and colored pins would shed new light on the subject. : )
The text above states “The depression is about a third the thickness of the ice sheet. After the glacier melts the mantle begins to flow back to its original position pushing the crust back to its original position.”
This would mean considerable uplift. I wonder where 800 meters of rebound occurs. That’s a lot considering the discussion above. Where-all was ice ~2400m thick? Or is this specific uplift due to other factors as well?
“If I might attempt a definition of septic as it is used in this context: of or relating to arguments that are put forward under the pretense of rational skepticism but which are in fact arguments that are so old and that have been addressed so many times they are no longer an element of rational, public discourse but of its putrefaction.”
That’s just the long version of “the science is settled”.
http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard
Press release starts thus:
Press Release: C-ROADS analysis of the final Copenhagen Accord
The Climate Scoreboard uses the C-ROADS simulation to calculate the long-term climate impacts of proposals under consideration in the negotiations to produce a global climate treaty. Embedded Scoreboards automatically update as the deal improves. Watch the video (top right corner) for background and explanation of features. To see recent changes to the Scoreboard, click on the log link at right. Note that Climate Interactive’s calculation shown in the Climate Scoreboard “widget” and graphs relate to proposals by countries and country groups. They are not assessments of the state of the “Copenhagen Agreement” as formally convened by the UNFCCC…..
Further to discussion about input from various data sources on the WAIS, it seems as though everything is coming together to portray a dismal story.
General review of observations so far, from a just-published paper that goes on to suggest that grounding lines of the WAIS have become significantly unstable:
“Recent observations of glaciers that flow into the Amundsen Sea suggest that they are undergoing accelerating change. Thomas et al. (2004) described altimetry measurements that document glacial thinning, and estimated that glaciers in this region are discharging almost 60 per cent more ice per year than they are accumulating. More recently, Wingham et al. (2009) documented rapid changes in ice thickness of the Pine Island glacier. Rignot (2008) used synthetic-aperture interferometry on radar observations collected over a period from 1974 to 2007 to determine changes in flow rates of the Pine Island and Smith glaciers. According to this work, the two glaciers sped up by 42 and 83 per cent, respectively, between 1996 and 2007; both also experienced a significant grounding-line recession during this period. The measurements show that acceleration of the Smith glacier was substantially larger in 2006–2007 than in previous years. Rignot et al. (2008) estimates that the combined flux of ice across the grounding line of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers in 2006 was 85±26 gigatonnes per year more than their combined ice accumulation rate at that time; this imbalance is a factor of two larger than that measured 10 years earlier.”
The authors go on to discuss grounding lines, concluding that the WAIS shows expected signs of an unstable retreat of grounding lines, which if true would lead to “a mounting, catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet associated with unstable retreat of grounding lines” versus an equally inexorable but more predictable reduction of the ice sheet and tributary glaciers.
Nice choice.
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/01/13/rspa.2009.0434.full#ref-7
Reminder for doubters just about to spew expired talking points: this has little or nothing to do with sea ice, which of course is sea level neutral to the extent it is not calved former grounded ice and except with that caveat is not an indicator of continental ice health. Remember also, an increase in the abundance of calved grounded ice is an indicator of increased outflow from ice sheets and combined with a reduction of tributary mass is -bad-, not good. Easy to understand, right?
I was surprised when I learned that CO2 has gone up 36% since the 19th century. Has anyone done experiments to determine if this has direct psychological effects on humans? It seems to me that this could be tested by lowering the CO2 content of a room, and asking volunteers to live in that room for some period of time. The results could be compared to a control group in otherwise identical rooms.
Basically, I’m wondering if 19th century air smelled less “stuffy,” and if a change of that magnitude could have made the average person more irritable, more aggressive, or whatever.
Ray Ladbudy #966:
Ray, in practice it’s not so simple. In Fennoscandia, e.g., the land uplift is of order 10 mm/yr geocentrically (relative to the Earth’s centre of mass) and 9 mm/yr relative to mean sea level as measured by tide gauges. Sea level itself rises by some 1.3 mm/yr (global average over the tide gauge era, Wöppelmann et al., 2007; recent values are higher; local values around Fennoscandia probably lower due to the “fingerprint effect”, Mitrovica et al. 2001). The geoid also uplifts in the Fennoscandian area due to the mass redistribution, amounting to about 0.4 mm/yr. All these numbers are for the maximum location at the end of the Gulf of Bothnia.
Using detailed patterns of sea level rise as observed at tide gauges (i.e., relative sea level rise) to constrain GIA is in fact what is being done. The geoid uplift OTOH is very small and not really usable for this, even if in principle you could observe this using satellite radar altimetry.
The geoid uplift is the phenomenon that can be observed by GRACE — I understand folks are working on this. The merit is that you’re actually looking at mass redistribution directly, rather than “inferring” from surface movements. But like with all gravimetric methods, there is still the depth ambiguity.
There is actually quite a bit on this on the Internet: google “BIFROST Fennoscandia”.
Also a COST working group: http://www.cost-es0701.gcparks.com/scientific-backround
Phil: “Well contrary to your personal incredulity that’s about the number that those who work on this subject use (as much as 200m).”
That’s why I put the info there:
1) my workings from Wales which I know about (200ft in 12000 years) which shows a much lower rate
2) my statement “I don’t think so”
Please now move on to the rest of it:
this isn’t measuring lift, it’s measuring gravitational anomaly, which depends some on lift, more on density and more on flow shapes.
this is also the shift from the removal of 1500-3000m of ice, as opposed to removal of 9m.
therefore 1cm/year for 3km (since Sweden is going faster, it must have been thicker: delineating my working again, Rod B/Tilo/etc take note) makes 0.03mm a year for 9m.
Even if you take a ten-fold increase because, presumably, Sweden is slowing about now, that would make it 0.3mm/year.
8ft=3m/year. that would be 100x the above. 3mm/year.
cf 9m loss…
Ray: “Is it your contention that ALL of these data are being misused? Do you have any idea of how unlikely it would be to achieve a consistent picture if this were true?”
It can be explained if the misuse/abuse were coordinated across all these groups.
Conspiracy theorists have no problem with that.
However, the CRU email theft of 13 years shows no such communication.
Kind of kills that idea.
Unless you’re a conspiracy theorist, then that just shows it was an inside job and they removed the most incriminating posts…
Or the NSA are editing out all posts from their massive security bunkers…
Dai tries again to throw muck in the well: “That’s just the long version of “the science is settled”.”
Nope, because in that case, it’s explaining what is meant by “the science”.
Your grief is over a different definition of “the science”.
And, to be honest, a different definition of “settled”.
And you refuse to define them to anyone because that can be answered unambiguously and therefore kills it as a strawman meme.
DW: It seems to me that if complete datasets are collected, then complete, unprocessed datasets should be archived and made available to the taxpayers for audit purposes.
BPL: Why? “Taxpayers” in general are not competent to do such “audits.”
DW: I’m still confused as to the reason we are using a much smaller dataset than is available, and extrapolating it to areas where real data is available (in the US). It also seems that data which is for sale and proprietary should not be used for public purposes since it cannot be audited publically.
BPL: Again, professionals do not need “audits” by people who have never studied anything about the field.
DW: I’m also wondering if it is true that historic tree ring data should not be used as a temperature proxy. That is my understanding of the “hide the decline” issue, not that temperatures are declining, but that the proxies are unreliable.
BPL: Your understanding is, once again, wrong. It was a particular subset of tree rings that diverged from all the other proxies, including other tree rings. See, this is why you have to actually study this stuff to be able to interpret it intelligently. Relying on an uninformed general impression can mislead.
DW: scientists need to be ready to debate one another publicly, at least where “soft science” (forgive me for calling it as I see it) relates to public policy.
BPL: The scientists are in agreement. The problem is, you want the scientists to debate crackpots in order to give the crackpots status as scientists, and pretend the issue is in debate when it’s not.
DW: There needs to be more clarity from the science community as to what the “settled science” really is.
BPL: There’s plenty. It’s just that there’s an entire denial community out there deliberating distorting, obscuring, and lying about what the settled science really is.
DW: I’m pleased that Dr. Hansen has softened his stance against fossil fuel, but I’m not pleased that he recently sat nodding in agreemnent as David Letterman implied that his young child faces doom. Sure, Letterman is a comedian, but sitting idly by without so much as a “but seriously folks” cheapens the image of a renowned scientist. IMHO Dr. Hansen missed a great opportunity to display real courage.
BPL: By lying? Hate to tell you this, pal, but Letterman’s child really does face doom, or a good chance of it, if we don’t turn things around in the next few years. Doom as in “complete collapse of human civilization some time in the next 40 years.” If you think I’m exaggerating or being “alarmist,” you haven’t studied the situation carefully. I have.
DW: the comfort and safety we all enjoy by virtue of industry and cheap energy does not equate to a suicidal tendency.
BPL: Actually, if we keep getting the conform and safety from cheap energy provided by fossil fuels, then yes, it is a suicidal tendency. That’s what we’re desperately trying to get through to right-wing yahoos like you.
David Wright, Al Gore is only a laughing stock to those who are easily fed and led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. Right wingers believe for instance that Al Gore said that “He invented the internet” which was totally taken out of context. “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet” meant that he pushed legislation which brought us to the super information highway that he had envisioned. Bill Gates said, “Nobody has done more to advance the internet than Al Gore.”
Having been born and raised in a totally right wing environment it took me 25 years before I was able to shed the indoctrination that had been heaped upon me. Through the study of history I came to realize that the right wing has never made a single societal advancement of human kind as far as I can tell. As a matter of fact it seems that the right wing always trends towards every societies very worst impulses. Conservatism sadly has shed itself of its real values and now has become an anti intellectual exercise is mendacity.
Tim Jones #1010: but that’s a conceptual sketch only… in reality it is tricky to figure out how the mantle rock flows in three dimensions. It is believed that the upper mantle has significantly lower viscosity (i.e., flows more easily) than the lower mantle. This would imply that mantle matter flows mostly to/from the “sides” under glacial loading / deloading. This seems indeed to be the case: in the peripheral “bulge” as it is called, the Earth’s crust is actually subsiding. For Fennoscandia that includes Britain; for the Laurentide uplift, it includes large parts of the US Atlantic coastline. This is one reason there has been relative sea level rise there in spite of global sea level having been roughly constant over the last 2000 years or so.
Yes, the continental ice sheet over Fennoscandia was believed to be some 2-3 km thick in the centre. The ratio between this and the crustal depression caused is equal to the density ratio between ice (about 0.9) and upper mantle rock (about 3.3), so 3 is a bit low.
Here’s a free PDF of our 2001 paper, which describes in detail how vertical and horizontal motions from permanent GPS are used together to invert for the vertical viscosity profile of the mantle (gravity change tells us something too, as do Holocene coastline proxies; but not used here):
http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~gamilne/milne_et_al_2001.pdf
Here’s yet another BIFROST page:
http://www.oso.chalmers.se/%7Ehgs/Bifrost_01/
Barton,
“Why? “Taxpayers” in general are not competent to do such “audits.””
I’m surely not, but there are many who are. As I said before, fighting an audit is not a good idea.
I, and the majority of the public do not have the time nor inclination to become climate scientists as you suggest. To do so would be redundant, an ineffecient use of my capabilities. If I thought that there was a crisis, perhaps I would become a student of climatology, but at this point I have better things to do than to learn the intricate details of the field. Besides, it seems that there are already way too many people studying the issue today (including the many ameteurs here). Our intellectual resources could be much better applied in other fields. We should have a much more robust lunar exploration program for example.
I would rely on others who are better qualified to audit the findings. Even those doing the peer review have not had the ability to perform a proper audit(were they so inclined) because the data is unavailable.
The divergence of the tree rings indicate that tree rings do not necessarily indicate temperature and so should not be used as proxies for older temperatures (prior to instrumental). Tell me why that’s wrong.
Your other points appear to me as a dogmatic belief system and so leave me with nothing to argue without appearing to be attacking you personally. I have no problem with you believing those things, so long as you do not impose those beleifs upon me.
David Wright says “I propose that a traveling debate series might be negotiated among the more prominent institutions, be broadcast over the internet using strict debate practices.”
Just who would you have the scientists debate? Presumably, you’d at least want all participants to be scientist who were actively publishing in the field. That narrows the field for the “skeptics” down to a handful. Even Richare Lindzen has published a lot more in op ed pages of late than he has in the scientific literature. Likewise Christy, Spencer…and who else?
And just what would be their argument? You’d have some saying, “It’s not happening…” Others saying “It’s the Sun…” Others saying, “Its galactic cosmic rays…” And on and on. There is no coherent skeptical position. The one thing they agree on is “The science is wrong…” That is not a scientific position.
In science, it is not enough to simplay look at what your opponents do and say, “You’re wrong.” Science doesn’t “audit”. Rather, a scientist takes issue with another scientist by showing how to better interpret the data and correct the errors in his colleague’s work. The recent refutation by TFOW of LC’08 is a classic case. They point out, for example that LC’08 use the wrong procedure for calculating sensitivity and then use the correct one. They point out that the signal in LC’08 is critically dependent on which intervals are used, and so is not robust. In so doing, they increase understanding. Compare that to the sort of “audit” the denialists do, which sheds no light on climate and merely asserts “Ya did it wrong…”
I would also note that since the denialists have so little science (like none) on their sides, they have tended to distort the science. For example, I quit listening to Lindzen altogether when he asserted that warming on Mars, Neptune, Jupiter, etc. implied a common cause. Anyone who understands anything about the energy budgets of these planets knows this is absurd on its face. Lindzen is too smart not to know this. I can only conclude that Lindzen was trying to score points with a lay audience regardless of their scientific validity.
I’m afraid, David, that if you had truth squads in the debate to prevent this sort of thing, any scientific debate would be a rather one-sided affair.
David Wright #1009, it is a mistake to think that ‘debate’ is the proper paradigm for reaching out to the public. The problem with that is that the parts of the science that are the most interesting and relevant to the public and to policy makers are also the parts where the debate is essentially over, except for the shouting. In that sense, indeed ‘the science is settled’. Of course not all the science is settled; such a science would be dead. But the stuff that is still being debated is mostly technical and not very interesting to the public at large — also because they are in no position to take sides in that debate. Let’s just leave that to the professional literature.
It is possible to have real debate even between an informed debater and a denialist, like happened between Monbiot and Plimer (did you learn anything from that? It’s still online); this worked, sort-of, because there was meaningful and informed moderation. The experience is, however, that once meaningful moderation by a non-friendly moderator is imposed, the deniers lose interest. Plimer won’t make that mistake a second time.
You mention yourself what a proper, working paradigm for outreach is: education. There is actually quite a lot of good material on the Internet already, like Dave Archer’s lectures. And I think it is clearest to view also RealClimate — and some other sites like Tamino’s — as educational sites. The “debate” here is mostly just misbehaving students ;-)
“And just what would be their argument?”
Ray,
It may be that the sceptics you cite are simply trying to prove the scientists wrong. While that might not be immediately productive, if it leads us nearer the truth, then in the long run it will be productive.
For my part, the debate would include the individuals you cite, and it would be in order to determine the severity of the problem and the effectiveness of any mitigation effort. For instance, how certain are we that the sea level will rise 6 meters in the next century? Will our efforts make any difference?
I like the insurance analogy which has been put forth.
The question is whether the threat justifies the premium.
Human civilizations have been forced to adapt and move as a result of climatic change in the past. I suggest that a strong economy is the best insurance that we have.
The earthquake in Haiti reminds me of the value of a strong economy when handling a crisis. We see reports of organizations who are gathering used clothing, toilet items and all sorts of assorted items which people think will be needed by the Hatians. What they may not realize is that this creates a huge logistical problem because someone has to sort through, package and deliver this chaotic assortment of items in order to deliver them. I’ll bet most of them end up in a dumpster somewhere.
The American Red Cross is pleading with people to simply send cash. That is the most effective way of handling the crisis. The Red Cross can order the necessary items in bulk, saving money and facilitating the logistics of delivery to the field.
IMHO a strong economy is the most effective way of protecting ourselves against climate change in either direction, warmer, cooler, wetter or drier. If we focus on CO2 reduction then we have not insulated ourselves against the possibility of changes other than warming. Further, no one seems to think that CO2 emission reduction will have any substantial effect on warming.
What sort of insurance is that?
David Wright claims: To most folks, Al Gore is a laughingstock.
David, I don’t know what kind of circles you run in, but here’s a counterexample. In November 2009, Gore came to Microsoft to give a presentation on his new book. It was in one of our biggest conference rooms, and it was packed with probably a couple of thousand people. He received standing ovations before and after his presentation. The book-signing line stretched around the entire room. Nobody in that room full of very smart people viewed Gore as a “laughingstock.”
David Wright makes another sweeping generalization: Further, no one seems to think that CO2 emission reduction will have any substantial effect on warming.
Who is this “no one” you have in mind? For a journalist, you seem to have a distressing tendency to make broad, unsupportable claims.
David Wright’s approach: a strong economy is the most effective way of protecting ourselves against lung cancer.
My approach: Quit smoking!
Oh, lordy lord lord lord, David Wright. You’ve been had. No shame being fooled–once. But don’t be fooled again. Look this stuff up, please.
You’ve been taken in by the fake story that scientists claimed sea level will rise six meters this century. That is a fantasy.
The Associated Press wire made a typo; some newspapers printed it, and buried the fact that they’d made a correction, not identifying what they’d corrected. That’s where this notion came from–a brief typo in some newspapers. The fantasists have been repeating it ever since.
Here’s an example. You can look it up for yourself. Please try.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-03-24/news/17284797_1_level-rise-sea-ice-sea-level/3
“OCEANS RISING FAST, NEW STUDIES FIND / Melting ice could raise levels up to 3 feet by 2100, scientists say
March 24, 2006|By David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor
… This story has been corrected since it appeared in print editions.”
[Response: Also read our discussions on the IPCC sea level rise projection at the time. – gavin]
David Wright wrote: “To most folks, Al Gore is a laughingstock, but he is unfortunately the one who first approched the public.”
In reality, Al Gore is a “laughingstock” to a tiny minority of “folks” — namely the so-called “right-wing”, self-described “Ditto-Heads” who slavishly and unquestioningly believe every single word that Rush Limbaugh says, and call themselves “skeptics” for doing so.
It is a characteristic of these “Ditto-Heads” that they imagine that their extreme, baseless, bizarre, lunatic-fringe, corporate-scripted, Limbaugh-programmed beliefs are shared by “most folks”.
Al Gore did a courageous and monumentally important thing when he devoted his time and energy to “approaching the public” on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, not only during his tenure as a public official but in private life after the election of 2000.
He should get some kind of prize or something …
Dave gives it all away:
“It may be that the sceptics you cite are simply trying to prove the scientists wrong.”
YES Dave, we know that.
It’s just that that isn’t science: you have to explain what is really going on.
There’s another problem with those denialists (you call sceptics) that their definition of “proof” is very low for them (yet strangely stratospheric when it comes to proving them wrong in turn…).
And to get the focus off the old fantasy — this is the reason for looking it up, to find out what is really being said now, not what someone misremembered from years ago — here are two from among the most recent papers on sea level.
Use the supplemental information and citing papers links, even if you don’t have access behind the paywall:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08686.html
Nature 462, 863-867 (17 December 2009) doi:10.1038/nature08686
Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage
and
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21461.extract
Projections of future sea level becoming more dire
Jonathan T. Overpeck and Jeremy L. Weiss
Yes, six or seven meters of water is tied up now in the ice, and the ice is melting; no, nobody said “this century” –except septic denialarmists.
David Wright says: I like the insurance analogy which has been put forth. The question is whether the threat justifies the premium.
Then you should visit Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance companies:
Ambitious climate protection targets are needed – or the cost of climate change will keep rising
Or talk to the insurance industry’s Geneva Association:
Insurers at core of climate change fallout
You may think that businesses oppose swift and significant action to reduce emissions, but that also is not the case:
Big business demands strong Copenhagen agreement
Finally, claims that Americans don’t understand climate change or view it as a threat are also not supported by the evidence.
New poll: 70 percent of Americans agree that global warming is occurring
I wrote in 1006:
David Wright wrote in 1011:
No it isn’t.
Justification exists in degrees. Some aspects of climate science are fairly well settled. The fundamental principles of radiation transfer theory, Planck’s law of black body radiation, the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide of water vapor and so on. Of course much of this has already been well established in other areas of science.
But then there are aspects which are less well established. The magnitude of the feedback due to clouds, aerosols or carbon cycle feedback, for example. Then there is the question of whether the fraction of carbon emissions being taken by various sinks has already begun to decrease. The evidence for either side has only begun to be presented.
However, I wasn’t really making an argument. I was simply offering others a tentative definition. We sometimes use the word “septic”. If you use a term you should be able define it. “Septic” as I have defined it applies primarily to arguments — those which are sometimes refered to as “zombie arguments”. They are arguments that have been addressed again and again — repeatedly “sent to the grave” as it were. But they keep coming back — each time posed by someone who acts as if they are as fresh as a daisy and who expects us to respond to them as such.
Secondarily, “septic” refers to those who are very selective in their “skepticism,” being skeptical of that which they would rather not believe (typically mainstream science) regardless of how much evidence accumulates for it. However, they tend to accept “alternate positions” quite hastily — since skepticism actually has little or nothing to do with their position. Under such circumstances you can’t really refer to them as “skeptics” — to do so would be to debase the term and would be an insult to genuine skepticism. So you need a different term. “Septics” is usually appropriate insofar as such people typically argue by means of septic arguments.
Incidently, I believe the majority if not totality of your arguments have been addressed repeatedly. In fact the majority of what I have seen so far (and a fair amount that you have not yet raised) were responded to in detail in one form or another by me personally right here:
Transparency and Complexity, parts I-V (438, and here, and here, and here, and here) in the CRU Hack: More Context thread.
No doubt the arguments that I responded to were responded to many times in the past. This was simply a recent occasion that I remember fairly well — in part because I was the one doing the responding. No doubt the very same arguments will be responded to many times in the future. But I sincerely hope this will happen less often.
Doug #991
“I’m sorry, I know it’s anti-science but I really would like the doubters to move off their shiftless bums, stop whining and flinging accusations and instead do some work. I will say that Bolivia’s METAR records can be found on the web”
I too am sorry – not being a doubter I was just curious as to where you found the data having looked myself & been demoralised by the number of hits to WUWT & CA that google found whatever iteration of “Bolivia, METAR, temperature, etc.” I tried.
All you needed to do was post a link, was that really too hard?
Personally I’m too busy doing my own research on long-term insect population dynamics & preparing to become a father to spend too much time on this, I was just curious to have a look at the data. I’m sorry to have wasted the precious time Doug spent writing the above paragraph.
Re: 1025 David Wright says:
17 January 2010 at 9:43 AM
Barton,
[…]
“Your other points appear to me as a dogmatic belief system and so leave me with nothing to argue without appearing to be attacking you personally.”
Thus in response to one of the better writers on climate science, one who demonstrates an extraordinary grasp of the subject much in line with the finding of most enlightened climate scientists, one who shares his understanding via the best medium of mass communication available, his expertize is dismissed as a “dogmatic belief system.”
This is denialism.
“I have no problem with you believing those things, so long as you do not impose those beleifs upon me.”
Yup, the quintessence of the conservative, libertarian ideology, a philosophy totally designed to justify selfishness and greed. It doesn’t matter what the natural sciences reveal, whether it regard water quality, air quality, endangered species, sustainable fishing, sustainable anything including climate and life on the planet, if it gets in the way of individual aspirations it must be dismissed. There can be no constraint on desire, no matter how irrational.
Since in fact scientific findings do influence rational policy makers, at all cost the science MUST be undermined as much as possible to ensure the denialist’s freedom to rape the planet. “Let’s start over,” “we must have congressional hearings,” “an audit should not be resisted” (whatever that means). It’s all about obstruction and delay so free market systems and their bean counters to obscenely overpaid executives can proceed with exuberance in the face of catastrophic consequences for the rest of us.
How about these sorts of fellows not imposing a cynical belief system and benighted obstructionism on me?
Richard Palm says: 17 January 2010 at 3:54 AM
“I was surprised when I learned that CO2 has gone up 36% since the 19th century. Has anyone done experiments to determine if this has direct psychological effects on humans? ”
People concerned with operating submarines and other potentially hazardous environments involving C02 have investigated this extensively.
Here’s an excellent writeup:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11170&page=46
According to that NAS report, perceptible effects begin to show up at around 7,000ppm, though presumably individual tolerances vary. Currently we’re at ~350ppm. So no worries.
Recommended: Apollo 13 the movie, where we get to see lithium hydroxide combined with duct tape to keep C02 under control.
Chris S. says: 17 January 2010 at 1:21 PM
“All you needed to do was post a link, was that really too hard? ”
Not hard at all, and I really am sorry. However, I’m fed up with witnessing a rabble of clowns selecting, copying and pasting a bunch of data somebody else has put together and then immediately turning around and accusing the persons they’re leaching from of fraud and incompetence when they don’t get the result they’re hoping for. Time for the clowns to take off the 3-fingered gloves and floppy shoes, do some work. A really committed hobbyist has a long attention span and is not deterred by fiddly details.
Mind you, I’m -not- calling you a clown. You’re collateral damage from my irritation.
Just dig around, use “historical METAR reports” or “historical METAR records”. You’ll find the stuff soon enough.
David@1028, Did you not read what I wrote–a crucial difference between science and anti-science is that science tries to determine what is right (and so finds out what is wrong in the process), while all anti-science does is try to prove existing science wrong. If you think about it, you will find that this is true with creationists, moon-hoaxers, tobacco-funded stooges, etc.
The focus of any scientific debate has to be what is correct, not why your opponents are incorrect.
You are also conflating multiple points in your idea of a debate:
1)Is the science sufficiently correct and cogent to establish a credible threat?
The answer to this is frankly unequivocal. There is simply no way you will be able to undermine the multiple, independent lines of evidence all painting a coherent picture of humans warming the planet. Moreover, we even have a very good idea of how much we will warm the planet. Some science, David, is settled. I do not need to know whether the graviton mediates the gravitational force to have high confidence that if I drop an apple, it will fall. Likewise, I do not need to know everything about Earth’s climate to know that if I add a well mixed, longlived greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, the planet will warm.
2)Is the science sufficient to tell us whether we need to address the threat?
Again, while there is more uncertainty here, there is sufficient evidence of serious harm to the globe’s productive and carrying capacity that we simply cannot “let it happen”. At a minimum, we know we are looking severe water stress for over a third of the planet’s population, inundation of low-lying areas, increased flood damage, decreased yields from cereal crops, and the extinction of many species.
3)Is the science sufficient to tell us what to do?
This is where the most uncertainty lies. However, one of the biggest problems with the science at present is that we cannot preclude a very high sensitivity (4.5-6.5 degrees per doubling) with sufficient confidence that we can ignore it as a possibility. The consequences of our current course in that event would be catastrophic. That means we must take steps to avoid risk while at the same time trying to better constrain risk–especially at the upper end of climate sensitivity. For the long term, whether avoidance or mitigation, regulation or technical innovation are the preferred strategy remains to be seen–but we simply must try to avoid risk until we know.
Again, though, before we could even begin to debate the second two points, we would have to agree on the science.
Ray Ladbury says: 17 January 2010 at 10:03 AM
Ray produces the definitive analysis of the merits and potential of “debates” on this field. Gently set whatever ideological or financial fears you have aside for a moment, read Ray’s words carefully.
There’s no substitute for an intellectually functional electorate. It is futile to conjecture a proxy mechanism as a substitute for a citizenry equipped with reasoning skills and a minimal amount of scientific education.
” Doug Bostrom says:
17 January 2010 at 2:23 PM
Chris S. says: 17 January 2010 at 1:21 PM
“All you needed to do was post a link, was that really too hard? ””
Mind you, just as well to ask Chris: all you have to do is look for yourself, is that really too hard?
Is it Chris?
Because you could then state what you found and, if you consider it reliable enough (i.e. the statistical analysis shows your conclusion robust), then there’s merit in showing that data and workings: to check your assertion.
But Doug has already said there was no robust conclusion. If he’s right, then it’s a waste of both your time producing it.
If he’s wrong, then it’s not necessarily wrong in a way that adds anything more to the debate (you can look at the IPCC and NMS reports and, ~95% of the time, get the same result). And that’s still a waste of both your time.
“Nothing to see” doesn’t really deserve double checking.
“Something to see” does.
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2008/08/31/atheistsfoxholes-libertariansairplanes/
There are still some on “spaceship Earth”–but the argument applies.
“According to that NAS report, perceptible effects begin to show up at around 7,000ppm, though presumably individual tolerances vary.”
That is for immediate instant effects.
Working in atmospheres with more than 1000ppm for more than 8 hours is regulated against and there are physiological effects that may not be noticeable (do you notice when that smoke creates a cancer cell? No? So is there no effect from smoking? No).
And indoor levels can be 50% higher than outdoor atmospheric effects.
Sorry, didn’t finish…
..there are physiologial effects below 700ppm that may not be noticeable…
Tim Jones (1010) — Lauerentide ice sheet at least 2.4 km thick.
Completely Fed Up says: 17 January 2010 at 2:43 PM
Hey, Chris’ complaint is valid. It goes against my grain to be so unhelpful; I have a service oriented persona.
Best thing would be for doubters to stop wasting their money erecting monasteries where old email is examined for minutia, spend a few bucks instead buying the historical data going back say 60 years. Really, two decades is not enough to form any conclusions. Infill is a hat pass away.
“Working in atmospheres with more than 1000ppm for more than 8 hours is regulated against…”
Hmm. According to the NAS report, submarine crews routinely work with higher exposures:
“Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003).”
However, we evolved where the concentration is 1/10th or less of that, so probably best to stay in that vicinity.
“You’ve been taken in by the fake story that scientists claimed sea level will rise six meters this century. That is a fantasy.”
All the more reason for scientists to step forward and inform the public of the real nature of the threat.
Please fill me in, what is the real projected sea level rise by the end of the century based upon the theory.