We have benefited enormously from scientific advance and its practical applications. Humans are the ultimate generalists and highly adaptable because they observe and learn. The scientific method takes this one stage further: we put forward hypotheses and do experiments to validate them. If the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations, we reject it. But if it does fit the facts, that doesn’t prove it’s right. Science should continually test theories so that we become more certain of their correctness, but we can never be absolutely sure.
Post-modern thinking teaches that there are no hard truths, that scientific ‘facts’ are social constructs. In one sense, that’s true, since we can never provide absolute proof of any theory. But, taken to the extreme, this school of thought is essentially anti-science and leads to the dangerous tendency we see today of decisions being made on the basis of people’s feelings rather than any objective basis. That leads to belief- rather than evidence-based policy. It also leads us away from the Enlightenment.
But science also is not a perfect, foolproof system; neither is it perfectible. The scientific method, for all its advantages as a basis for decision-making, and for all the benefits it has undoubtedly brought us, is only an overlay on human nature.
The pronouncements of post-modern philosophers may be anathema to scientists, but scientists are also human, with the same nature and tendency to judge. After all, scientific investigation only provides evidence based on the question asked and the experiment carried out. Asking the question in a different way may give a subtly (or not so subtly) different set of data. The data itself is subject to analysis by human intellect, and individuals may place different weights on particular facts. So, from seemingly the same question or data, different people may draw different conclusions. And, although a scientific approach requires us to try to disprove a theory, in practice human nature leads us to ask the sort of questions, and collect the sort of data, which supports the views we already hold. Research then becomes a game of amassing evidence to support a dearly-held view while finding ways to explain away conflicting results.
This tendency to establish ‘proven’ theories which ‘everyone’ believes means that important scientific advances are often made only in the teeth of opposition. Most people behave more according to their human nature than their scientific discipline. There are numerous examples of theories now considered effectively to be established fact which were initially scorned by the scientific establishment: the circulation of blood, plate tectonics, atomic structure, to name but three. In most cases, this is just the result of intellectual inertia and scepticism, but there is also an element of belief. The current debate about the drivers of climate change is a modern case in point.
The terms global warming or climate change have a very specific connotation in today’s society. They are shorthand for anthropogenic climate change, the root cause of which is the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused primarily by the industrial use of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas.
The great majority of the scientific establishment adheres firmly to this hypothesis, on the basis of which highly prescriptive and centralised policy changes are proposed to fundamentally reduce the carbon-intensity of modern society. Thus, this is not just a bitter scientific controversy: it’s a debate which has the potential to shape the future direction of society. What is more, it’s a debate where apparently the majority of scientists are aligned with environmentalists.
The received wisdom is that the warming trend over the past century bears the unmistakable imprint of Mankind’s activities, is unprecedented and could have catastrophic consequences if allowed to continue. The basis for this is a belief that the effects of all natural climate drivers are understood and that changes which cannot be explained by them must be due to human influence. This is a plausible hypothesis, and one which should be tested, but there remain large gaps in our knowledge and a number of pieces of seemingly contradictory evidence.
The point is that an apparent majority of scientists have seen enough to convince themselves that humans are the primary driver of current climate change, and that something must be done about it. Having reached this conclusion, they rightly continue to amass evidence, but there is an inbuilt bias both in the questions asked and the way that data is viewed. There will equally be some critics of this view who will focus only on the evidence which supports their view, rather than trying to be objective.
This is normal human behaviour in both cases. If you think that someone is wrong, the natural tendency is to bring forward your own arguments rather than look at areas of agreement. The debate gets more polarised and more subjective. Science takes second place.
Since there remain large areas of uncertainly the scientific method should mean that we continue to make observations until the evidence becomes compelling. But the majority of people now believe global warming – human induced global warming – to be an established truth. And the reason for this is typical crowd behaviour: when enough establishment scientists make their views known, have them amplified by the media and supported by the environmental movement, the majority of people take this as the truth. It’s the Emperor’s new clothes once again. Those who play the role of the little boy pointing out that the Emperor is in fact naked are derided and attacked, often in very personal ways. The establishment does not tolerate dissent well.
So, what will happen? Ultimately, the whole debate will be settled on the basis of real evidence. Whatever policy is implemented in the meantime is likely to be immaterial in terms of influencing the climate, although it will consume resources, slow growth and actually have a real negative impact on those at the bottom of the pile. But at some stage – perhaps by 2010, perhaps later – we could reach a tipping point where it becomes clear to the majority of scientists, commentators and the public that, whatever is happening to the climate, Mankind is not the major contributor, and cannot reset the thermostat by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Alternatively, real confirmatory evidence that carbon dioxide is the main driver may be found, and those critics with open minds will change their views.
If a tipping point is reached where the current received wisdom is overturned, it’s trust in the scientific establishment which will be the loser, and that could lead to further erosion in the general public’s regard for the scientific method. Human nature would have trumped science, and science would suffer.
Newsletter 31st August 2007
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hang in there Paul!. (I think you dont understand that uncertainty about proof is unbiased otherwise the system does not work). So what would it take for you to give up?.And you want your followers to just hang in for the real evidence and then WOW, the tipping point,perhaps 2010 as you suggest. Is the tipping point a bit like the second coming. ( I remember them). Pls explain Paul, what is this real evidence I am waiting for, where can I shop for that, and why will it take perhaps to 2010. Methinks your breath is overbated.
Actaully, I didn’t write it. Perhaps someone could explain the following on the basis of CO2 – man-made or otherwise:
“The melting of the ice in the Schnidejoch pass(Swiss Alps) during the unusually hot summer of 2003 revealed a long forgotten short-cut accross the Alps for travellers and traders. 300 hundred items from the Neolithic era, the Bronze Age, the Roman period, and Medieval period, along with ice mummified corpse of ‘Otztal’ man, who had been there for over 5000 years – the end of warmest post ice age phase known as the ‘Holocene Optimum.’ This also explained the mystery of the Roman lodging house above present day Thun.”
There is a heap of explanation in S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery’s book “Unstoppable Global Warming — Every 1,500 years.” Paul (first Paul!), you are wrong when you say “the majority of” scientists or the scientific community believe in this hooey. You have been sucked in by the press and politicians’ old trick of making a distinct minority appear to be a vast majority. Read the right stuff, and you will find heart once again.
More framing
Love the way denialists like to portray themselves as the underdogs – Galileos struggling against the system. But it’s just an adopted persona – one can easily argue that AGW has argued its way out of dark ages into the light against “the system” as well.
Nice try – doesn’t wash.
“The received wisdom is that the warming trend over the past century bears the unmistakable imprint of Mankind’s activities, is unprecedented and could have catastrophic consequences if allowed to continue.”
Nope – paleo records suggest there have been warming trends before – but not with 6 billion humans in our current state of development. Catastrophic consequences – well maybe – but what’s omitted is that you already have catastrophic consequences to deal with. And humanity doesn’t well cope with these.
“The basis for this is a belief that the effects of all natural climate drivers are understood and that changes which cannot be explained by them must be due to human influence. ”
Nope – science doesn’t work by the exemption method – nice try – just more framing.
“If a tipping point is reached where the current received wisdom is overturned, it’s trust in the scientific establishment which will be the loser, and that could lead to further erosion in the general public’s regard for the scientific method.” ooooo – let’s back off coz we’re scared – let’s be irrational and illogical and deny what we know for PR vale – doesn’t wash
Any decent AGW advocate could rewrite the lead post in an AGW positive light – the post is just opinion and framing on the debate.
As for our ‘Otztal’ man – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=65
“You have been sucked in by the press and politicians’ old trick of making a distinct minority appear to be a vast majority.”
Apparently Janet subscribes to a conspiracy theory in which the majority of the world’s politicians and press are trying to pull the wool over our eyes using an ‘old trick’, and yet the majority of people are stupid enough to have fallen for this old trick.
By all means debate the policy approach.
But extremist views such as Janet’s are built on paranoia and contempt – paranoia that mainstream politics and media are actively trying to mislead on a wide scale in a one-sided fashion, and a contempt for most of the people who comprise the society she is part of. Such extremism is just an horrible on the far green left side of the spectrum.
Don’t read the wrong people just read ‘the right stuff’, ie Singer!?!?! *snigger*
As for the piece Paul quoted:
It is a long winded polemic about all sorts of trendy things to talk about like post-modernism and the scientific method. Then it stoops to a bit of pop-psych generalisation, suggesting that the momentum for action on global warming is merely ‘typical crowd behaviour’. Hardly a scientific approach to analysis.
Finally, it pathetically talks about the possibility (or is it just a hope?) of a ‘tipping point’ (more trendy lingo) some time around 2010 when everyone will see the light.
Yes, it probably would be a bad day for science if such a tipping point abruptly occurred. A weak point though, without a valiant attempt to demonstrate that the probability of such an occurrence is very far from zero.
“The basis for this is a belief that the effects of all natural climate drivers are understood and that changes which cannot be explained by them must be due to human influence. This is a plausible hypothesis, and one which should be tested, but there remain large gaps in our knowledge and a number of pieces of seemingly contradictory evidence.”
While this piece seems plausible there are two huge problems with it starting with this. This is no climate scientist in the world, I am sure, that thinks that ALL climate drivers are understood. The basis for the hypothesis of recent AGW is not simply that changes we cannot explain must be due to human influence. The basis of AGW is that humans clear land and produce gigatons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases have been proven by scientific studies to affect the heat balance of the Earth’s atmosphere which historically has be a huge driver of the Earths global climate. So this statement in the article is false.
“This is normal human behaviour in both cases. If you think that someone is wrong, the natural tendency is to bring forward your own arguments rather than look at areas of agreement. The debate gets more polarised and more subjective. Science takes second place.”
Science does not take second place as consistently AGW proponents point to the peer reviewed scientific evidence that exists for AGW. The only place science takes second place is where AGW deniers ignore such evidence to preserve their own world views.
“But at some stage – perhaps by 2010, perhaps later – we could reach a tipping point where it becomes clear to the majority of scientists, commentators and the public that, whatever is happening to the climate, Mankind is not the major contributor, and cannot reset the thermostat by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Alternatively, real confirmatory evidence that carbon dioxide is the main driver may be found, and those critics with open minds will change their views.”
And herein lies the main problem. Yes by 2010 it may well be that all us AGW people are totally wrong and you can all have a good laugh at our expense or line us up against a wall if that what you are like. In which case that will be great because there will be no rapid AGW induced climate change and the Earth will remain much like it is now – which is the best possible outcome.
However by the time real confirmatory evidence is found and the climate does change in real and measureable ways that even the most blind AGW denier cannot possibly ignore it will be far too late to do anything. Yes it will be great to be proven right however it will be a pretty hollow victory and I for one I would prefer to be completely wrong.
This is one problem that we are very ill equipped to deal with. If we wait and see we can’t do anything about it however we can’t do anything because we have to wait and see.
This article could have just been written Catch-22 and left it at that.
Ender wrote:
“Greenhouse gases have been proven by scientific studies to affect the heat balance of the Earth’s atmosphere which historically has be a huge driver of the Earths global climate.”
Historically CO2 increases have trailed temperature by about 800 years. The effect of a doubling of CO2, without feedbacks, is about 1 degree C. There is no evidence that the feedbacks are positive.
Ender wrote:
“Science does not take second place as consistently AGW proponents point to the peer reviewed scientific evidence that exists for AGW.”
Replication, not peer review, is the hallmark of science. Can you say cold fusion? Just because something is peer reviewed doesn’t make it true nor does it exempt science from questioning a published papers validity.
Ender wrote:
“However by the time real confirmatory evidence is found and the climate does change in real and measurable ways that even the most blind AGW denier cannot possibly ignore it will be far too late to do anything.”
The first part of this sentence is quite revealing. “By the time real confirmatory evidence is found” is an admission that the peer reviewed evidence is not as strong as some would assert.
Well replication and papers documenting a doubling of CO2 gives about 3C !
“By the time real confirmatory evidence is found” – meaning another 2-3C !! and 30 – 50 years later again. Simulate what AGW would look like – you’re trying to detect a trend coming out of a fog of variability. At first you’ll smell something, then you’ll see some smoke, then eventually a fire will be spotted. Do people think that somehow natural variability is somehow extinguished if AGW exists. AGW is just another forcing into the mix.
And we do a have a strong trend coming out of a fog of variability with lots of change indicators.
Maybe we have got AGW wrong – maybe it’s actually worse than we think ?? Why only entertain one side of the distribution?
Luke wrote:
“Well replication and papers documenting a doubling of CO2 gives about 3C !”
And what papers would do that? Steve McIntyre has been searching for the derivation of CO2 doubling effects with no success. If it exists it doesn’t appear in any of the IPCC reports.
Not the underdogs Luke?
Why the sensitivity about admitting the obvious?
AGWer’s are clearly dominating the debate , they’ve won the public’s loyalties , they’re attracting vast sums of research dollars ( far more than “deniers”) , the media is overwhelmingly on side,the politicians are dancing to their tune ; any departure from the orthodoxy is dealt with swiftly and mercilessly , skeptics are vilified and their moral code questioned?
It’s OK to be on the side of the majority and aligned with the powerful – no need for the adolescent knee jerk against the establishment ; you’re part of it!
Indeed such a position should lend itself to far more magnaminity towards dissenters than you , SJT and Ender usually demonstrate.
Relax guys – remember the debate is over!!
“By the time real confirmatory evidence is found ” ( I suspect no matter what happens many minds will remain closed ) we’ll be living with new low-emission technology regardless.
Greg F – “Historically CO2 increases have trailed temperature by about 800 years. The effect of a doubling of CO2, without feedbacks, is about 1 degree C. There is no evidence that the feedbacks are positive.”
That is not exactly the case at all. What seems to happen in the past is that orbital variations start the warming or cooling and secondary greenhouse effects then kick in. This time WE are releasing the greenhouse gases without an orbital variation. The evidence from the past confirms that greenhouse gases do change the climate.
“Replication, not peer review, is the hallmark of science. Can you say cold fusion? Just because something is peer reviewed doesn’t make it true nor does it exempt science from questioning a published papers validity.”
Replication AND peer review are the hallmarks of science. Peer review is not perfect however it does weed out the truly wrong usually. As you correctly state replication is important however climate science is one of those branches of science where replication is difficult. Replication can only be carried out in computers.
So, Steve, since you are so intelligent, please enlighten me as to why one should “snigger” at the name Singer. Please persuade me. No rhetoric – real science as to what is wrong in his publication.
Also, I’m not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories. The poor non-investigative “journalists” of the press are probably victims as well. There is real, BIG money at stake here. GW advocates like Al Gore have a lot to gain by getting carbon credit trading mandated.
The debate is over, AGW whether it exists or not the issue of climate change has been addressed at the source.
http://campongcorner.blogspot.com/2007/08/return-to-arms.html
Environmentalists of the more feral type make godlike demands off the rest of us.
Nothing wrong with dealing with real observable issues, animal and species protection or a whole range of issues.
The funny thing is most peole want to be environmentalists of some sort or other now a days.
Me I think a rational approach is a better way of doing things. Science is not belief and belief is not science.
Ender wrote:
“What seems to happen in the past is that orbital variations start the warming or cooling and secondary greenhouse effects then kick in”.
The feedbacks in the Milankovitch cycle are attributed to the change in albedo due to melting or accumulation of snow/ ice. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it.
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
Ender wrote:
“As you correctly state replication is important however climate science is one of those branches of science where replication is difficult. Replication can only be carried out in computers.”
The computer models are crude and inadequate to be of any use. They are essentially curve fits.
Now come on – the papers and blogosphere is saturated with AGW dissent and complaint. Pity most of it is crap. The whole “skeptics vilified” story is just more framing. They’re sure noisy for having been vilified.
Read the level of hostility on anti-sites – over the top in intensity of anger. But that’s the ol’ cognitive dissonance reaction.
As for Godlike demands – well didn’t seem to having much effect last time I went out – trains, planes and automobiles all going at full tilt. City lights on at night. Shops full of what ever your heart desires. So so all the complaining that greenies may have done – what’s changed.
And do we not live in a democracy – if one doesn’t like it don’t vote for it.
Don’t shoot the science message just because you don’t like the policy response.
As for papers on CO2 sensitivity – well read the blog’s archives including in the last week.
Greg F “curve fit” comment belies the total level of ignorance. Amazing !
As for Singer – shill for hire? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer See tobacco
As for the book: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air
Or for some real fun Google Deltoid and Singer.
Luke,
Why don’t you tell me what you think the climate models are capable of instead of resorting to a ad hominem?
Well Greg why don’t you do a bit of basic research instead of sprouting nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model for a VERY brief overview.
More evasion Lukey boy!
The ” papers and blogosphere is saturated with AGW dissent and complaint”.
You and I both know what a load of bollocks that is – sure there are some dissidents on the net and occassionally they get a run in The Australian but just about nowhere else.
The ABC even had to go through an elaborate declaration of disassociation for God’s sake just to show one paltry programme questionning the establishment position!
And the true believers here all went apesh-t as a result of the ABC’s decision to even give the dissidents 5% of the airtime the AGWer’s get!
The only message we’re staurated with is the matter of fact , no room for doubt , we’re causing it, it’ll turn really bad really soon and we’ve got to do something NOW!!
And the disproving of the statement that skeptics are vilified is that their noisy in their protest?
On this blog alone they’ve been described as scum , deniers , flat-earthers , fanatics , anti-science and the list goes on.
Sure they give it back but they’re hardly in the ascendancy.
Better correct that grammar or Jen’s Mum will be on to me;
And the disproving of the statement that skeptics are vilified is that THEY’RE noisy in their protest?
My apologies.
The Gunns paper mill is probably a better example of the concern encapsulated in the lead post at this particular time.
IOW Luke you don’t know crap about the climate models. From your link:
“Progress has been made in incorporating more realistic physics in the models, but significant uncertainties and unknowns remain.”
And:
“Convection occurs on too small a scale to be resolved by climate models, and hence must be parameterised.”
Convection is the major process that moves heat from the surface.
More from the link:
“The behavior of clouds is still poorly understood and is parametrized.”
And:
“If CO2 changes the amount or distribution of clouds, it could have various complex effects on the climate. In the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, the possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change;”
In spite of the fact that no one knows if clouds are a positive or negative feedback, all the models treat them as positive. That is a bias that effects what they output.
The “parametrized” variables are not based on the physics. They are set to get the models to simulate history. IOW, they use the “parametrized” variables to curve fit to past climate.
Now Luke, instead of spouting insults why don’t you tell us what you think climate models can do beyond the simplistic Wiki page.
Jim, Jim, Jim
let’s see and .. .. “just about nowhere else”
The Wall St Journal
or maybe Energy and Environment
Even the Courier Mail
or at
Warwick Hughes
NZ CLimate Coolition
Lavoisier Society
Climateaudit
techcentralstation
These dudes seemed to have no problem making their views known to the Candadian PM
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Then there’s McIntyre, Lomborg, Motl, John Howard, George Bush
As for ah homs – I think Motty has made up for all of you. Spivs and turds galore. Have a GOOD LOOK at all your colleagues comments with BOTH eyes open.
Greg F – oh a game player and a player eh?
Remarkable really that by curve fitting they seems to have produced a working model of the planet’s weather and climate that incoporates many real world processes – must a quite few curves eh (ROTFL!). Fancy having El Nino, the NAO, jet streams, and teleconnections. You can even spin cyclonic vortices if you get fine enough.
Yes GCMs have parameterisation schemes for certain sub-grid processes – physics based statistical models based on empirical observationla data.
But that’s a long way from curve fitting to give you the “right answer”. It may surprise you to know that most modellers do about things like that.
Anyone can tune a curve to go through data points but I think you might find (if you had half a brain) that there may be a little more involved in climate modelling than doing that.
Why you give us a guest post on the literature of the pros and cons of GCM validation. You could give us a run on fingerprinting perhaps. This should be good to watch.
Maybe I might just give one example independent model validation. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
The number of publications/names is irrelevant Luke – and you know that.
You’re not an idiot.
An impressively long list means nothing – it’s the relativities which count.
So come on ; enough of the artful dodging.
Do you seriously believe that the media gives equal time and credence to the views of skeptics and true believers?
Simple question.
And BTW , no-one here said anywhere that skeptics can’t make their views known.
We can all cut and paste the list of the Canadian scientists and I well remember your attack on them for speaking up.
I’m challenging your frankly incredible statement that skeptics aren’t the underdogs in this debate.
Oh – one more thing; Howard , Bush and Lomborg all accept the influence of anthropogenic CO2 on global temperature so why mention them?
Publicly Howard and Bush might – but as they say “I’m sceptical”.
In answer to your question – Averaged overall – I seriously believe the media gives disproportionate time to contrarian op ed pieces, given the quality of argument and information.
But the media loves controversy and disagreement. Sells copy.
But I’m happy enough for them to say what they like. Free speech and all that.
Greg F – “The feedbacks in the Milankovitch cycle are attributed to the change in albedo due to melting or accumulation of snow/ ice. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it.”
What??? Sorry that is just plain wrong. Even if the CO2 followed the temperature changes which is not certain the positive feedback of releasing CO2 from permafrost etc is quite well established as providing enough forcing for the changes in temperature. If greenhouse gases do not trap heat then how is the Earth 30° warmer with an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases that if it was without them?
“The computer models are crude and inadequate to be of any use. They are essentially curve fits. ”
So you work in the field of climate modelling then? How can you say this? The computer models we have are good enough to run experiments on as we do not have a spare Earth in the lab. Astronomers have to do the same thing as they do not have a handy bottle of supernovae or black holes to set up and experiment with.
Luke,
I asked you before and I will ask again. Tell us what you think climate models can do? Stop dodging the question.
As far as Hansen’s model is concerned I suggest you actually read the papers instead of having RC do your thinking for you.
Ender,
I am still waiting for the derivation that proves “replication and papers documenting a doubling of CO2 gives about 3C”. Without that the assertion that “the positive feedback of releasing CO2 from permafrost etc is quite well established as providing enough forcing for the changes in temperature” is simply hand waving as it is based on an unproven assumption.
I am gone for the long weekend but will check back early next week.
Well gee Greg F isn’t that a specific question. err let’s see – maybe they simulate global climate under various conditions?
Greg F – “I am still waiting for the derivation that proves “replication and papers documenting a doubling of CO2 gives about 3C”. Without that the assertion that “the positive feedback of releasing CO2 from permafrost etc is quite well established as providing enough forcing for the changes in temperature” is simply hand waving as it is based on an unproven assumption.”
There are a very good discussions of climate sensitivity at Real Climate with multiple references to peer reviewed work that you can read or just read James Annan’s paper on it that uses multiple sources including ice cores to estimate it.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=240#ClimateSensitivity
The media love a ‘good’ story – it’s their bread and butter. Extreme climate events are extremely ‘good’ stories.
The recent floods in northern NSW are an example.
Before the advent of ‘climate change’ (aka ‘global warming’) they were regarded as ‘acts of God’, now it’s all our fault.
We must buy new light fittings to take more expensive fluorescent bulbs, solar hot water heaters, pay more for electricity, gas and water, any number of future imposts imposed by governments and statuary authorities as well as higher prices for goods and services, driven up by an artificial market in ‘carbon credits’ – all this and more before “real confirmatory evidence is found” (Ender at September 1, 2007 09:57 AM)?
The reputations of computer models and modelers are as much on trial as those of many scientists.
The earth’s climate is stable due to low sensitivity to CO2 (1 to 1.5C for doubling), otherwise we wouldn’t be here now. Most feedbacks are negtive rather than positive (as assumed by climate models).
The Schnidejoch pass demonstates 4 warm periods, in addition to the current warm period, followed by cooling.
Luke wrote:
“… maybe they simulate global climate under various conditions?”
Once again Luke dodges the question. Bugs Bunny is a simulation of a rabbit. Just because it is “simulated” doesn’t make it accurate. A curve fit is also a simulation. It is quite evident that Luke accepts the models output as a belief.
Ender wrote:
“There are a very good discussions of climate sensitivity at Real Climate … ”
Haa ha ha. Let me know when they stop censoring comments.
I read James Annan’s paper quite a while ago and I think his method has merit. His multiple sources include climate models as if they were real data, they are not. For an example of using real data to attempt to quantify climate sensitivity see:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0509166.pdf
That is what I am looking for, not computer simulations. I would suggest you read this:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf
Greg F – “Haa ha ha. Let me know when they stop censoring comments.”
Just letting you know that they do not censor comments.
From your example I found this:
“We present a new analysis with no adjustable parameters based upon observational data and one theoretical result (volcano forcing) that yields the values of the climate parameter λ = 0.18 ± 0.06 K/(W/m2).”
So they made up one parameter, volcano forcing. They then change the observational data by:
“We now consider the LW emission data. It is generally expected to follow the temperature, but we find it to be quite anomalous in the present case. The three data sets, AOD, temperature, and LW emission, are analyzed by the delayed correlation method described by Douglass et al. [2004a, 2004b]….”
So sure they use the observational data but they change it to suit themselves. How can you be sure that what they observe is simply mistakes in their changes or assumptions?
Ender wrote:
“So they made up one parameter, volcano forcing.”
In a word, NO. From the paper:
“The AOD index (dimensionless) is generally accepted as the proxy for volcano climate forcing. Hansen et al. [2002] have shown that
ΔF=A⋅AOD,
where A = −21 W/m2. This value of A is the latest estimate by the Hansen group.”
A simple example of a theoretical result would be if I knew the mass and acceleration of an object I could calculate the force with Newton’s law. The force is the “theoretical result”.
Ender quotes the paper:
“The three data sets, AOD, temperature, and LW emission, are analyzed by the delayed correlation method …”
Ender wrote:
“So sure they use the observational data but they change it to suit themselves.”
Your kidding right? They didn’t change any of the data. They simply quantified the time differential between the 3 variables.
From the paper:
“… the determined delay between LW and AOD is observed to be 0 and that between LW and TLT is long (6 months)…”
This does not change the data at all. It simply extracts information (in this case the time differential) that is already there.
Greg F
Tell us what’s wrong with chapters 8 & 9 of the 4AR and stop playing silly games eh?
otherwise
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf which leads to:
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
also of interest but marginal to sensitivity
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020937.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005…/2005GL023624.shtml
Luke wrote:
“Tell us what’s wrong with chapters 8 & 9 of the 4AR and stop playing silly games eh?”
I asked you before and I will ask again. Tell us what you think climate models can do? Stop dodging the question.
It’s Graeme Bird’s cousin. Well Greg J – they reproduce climate to the standard of the review in Chapter 8 of the 4AR – without a more specific question that’s all you get. I suppose it would make you happy if I precised it for you – well as you’re not forthcoming with any more than parroting the same line that ain’t likely. Chapter 8 gives you a full review of climate model capability. As you can see numb nuts it’s a tad more than curve fitting. Let’s just say Greg F if you’re trying to make a point – you haven’t done zip. That was your last chance.
Luke wrote:
“they reproduce climate to the standard of the review in Chapter 8 of the 4AR – without a more specific question that’s all you get.”
I gave you a wide open opportunity to address what you think climate models are capable of. You could have listed as many items as you wanted. Instead you dogged the question and resorted to insults. That, my dear boy, is the extent of your intellectual abilities.
Luke wrote:
“As you can see numb nuts it’s a tad more than curve fitting.”
You have no clue what a curve fit is. All you can do is throw insults.
Luke wrote:
“Let’s just say Greg F if you’re trying to make a point – you haven’t done zip.”
I didn’t have to. You made the point for me. You are unwilling to engage in a discussion on climate models. That much is clear. Anybody can link to articles on a given subject. That does not mean they actually understand anything about the subject.