Post 3 of 12: A Brief Guide to the Climate Debate
Climate Fact of the Day: 2011 was the 35th year in a row that the global temperature was above average (1880-2011). That means half of all Americans have never lived through a year that was below average temperature.
Post No. 3 in this 12-part series on climate change discusses the so-called “debate” and the successful attempt to “raise doubt” about one of the most studied and widely accepted scientific principles in the history of science.
Previous and upcoming posts are listed below for reference. Former post titles link to back to the original posts.
3: A Brief Guide to the Climate Debate: a look at the “Climate War” and who is saying what
4: The Arguments: The most common arguments and responses
5: On Our Watch: Science tells us that climate change is happening now
6: Yep, We Did It: Science tells us that this climate change is from OUR activities
7: What It Means to Missouri: How climate change will likely impact our region
8: Save Money, Save the Climate!: Simple ideas that save money while reducing CO2 emissions
9: Our Choice: What we can do to limit further harm while adapting to the changes to come
10: Lead!: Climate Change is happening. The United States can lead, or get left behind
11: If We Don’t? Geo-engineering the climate. What is it and why we don’t want to go there
12: Final Thoughts. Ethical considerations
The Climate “Debate”
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public.“
–Unnamed tobacco executive, Brown & Williamson (1969)
If you think there is still debate among top scientists over whether the climate is changing, or whether man has influence on the climate, then the attempt to convince you these remain controversial questions has been successful (read “Merchants of Doubt”).
“What? I hear/read opposing arguments from all kinds of experts on the TV, radio or the Internet.”
Of course you did!
The reality is that the “experts” you might have seen on TV or the Internet are not practicing climatologists, or if they are, they are far, far outside of the scientific agreement and might even be on the payroll of oil or energy interests or free market “Think Tanks," such as the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute or the American Enterprise Institute. (Read: The Inquisition of Climate Science)
There is good publicity, and good money, in dissenting from the accepted mainstream views. The organizations that fund these “dissenters” stand to gain considerably by promoting climate change misinformation. (Read: “Climate Cover-Up”)
The reality, as I indicated in post No. 1, is that human caused climate change is accepted by every National Academy of Science in the world as well as all of the most respected scientific organizations dealing with climate or atmosphere, including NASA, the American Geophysical Union, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), UCAR and NCAR (Atmospheric Research organizations)
Additionally, over 97 percent of practicing climatologists agree with the IPCC assessment—that the earth warming, it’s caused by man and that the consequences will be harmful.
There are also many interested organizations outside of science that agree with the consensus of climate/atmosphere science organizations and the 97 percent of climate scientists. Here are a few that you may have heard of:
- The Pentagon, US Army, US Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard
- All the Major Oil/Energy Companies, including Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP
- All the Major Global Insurance Companies
- All the Major Automobile Manufacturers, including GM, Ford, Honda and Fiat/Chrysler
- The Christian, Jewish, Islamic and religious institutions, including the US Catholic Church
- 70 of the largest companies in the world, including Coca Cola, Microsoft and Wal-Mart
Okay, that’s one side of the argument, who’s on the other?
There are no scientific organizations that hold dissenting views
None?
There are plenty of political or ideological organizations that hold dissenting views, but no scientific organizations. If you disagree with this claim, please post a link to the climate related scientific organization and the statement that indicates dissent.
Okay, but what about other organizations or people that disagree?
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? Your plumber about your tax situation? Your chiropractor about that funny noise your car is making?
Whether the climate is changing, and the cause of the change, is a scientific question that is best answered by experts in that field – which are climate scientists (climatologists).
What do the climate scientists say? Here is a recent statement published in the NY Times that was signed by 38 of the top climate scientists in the world:
“Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.”
The climate scientists also wrote:
“The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases
This expert opinion is supported with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence from the real world - like receding glaciers, shrinking polar ice caps, and increasing levels of severe storms, droughts, forest fires and floods.
“But what about “climate gate” and “hide the decline” comments in the emails between climate scientists? Are they hiding something?
This is best answered by Mark Twain who wrote:
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”
See this 9 minute video to explain “climategate” and this 17 minute video that explains “hide the decline”
In my opinion, these types of attacks on science and the deliberate campaign of misinformation are best described by Donald A. Brown, Associate Professor, Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law, Penn State who wrote the following:
“Words fail us about how to characterize the magnitude of the harm that is being done in the name of ideology. It is too absurd on its face to think that any reasonable observer can seriously conclude that climate change science is a hoax or that the consensus view that humans are causing climate change has been debunked.: in fact we are looking for the right metaphors to simply describe the sheer harmfulness of what has been happening.. We would appreciate ideas on this issue. Only poets can approach this task until we come up with the right metaphor.”
Note:
The next post in this series (No. 4) will consider some of the most common “arguments”, several of which you will see in comment replies made to this blog series, that are used by those that think the National Academy of Science, NASA, NOAA and every accredited climate/atmosphere related science organization in the world is somehow wrong.
Author's Note to commenters:
This is sure to be a controversial topic and I’m OK with that. I only ask that you keep your comments civil, respectful, informed and related to the particular subject matter discussed. As you can see from the topic list at the beginning of this post, there are plenty to topics to be talked about over the summer.
If your comment doesn't meet these reasonable standards for civility, or is off topic, don't expect a response. I’ll also flag the comment as inappropriate.
I also ask that if you dispute a claim, that you provide a link to a reputable source supporting your claim.
Disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist, nor do I claim to have scientific expertise in this subject. Scientific claims made in these posts will be sourced only from highly respected and accredited scientific organizations.
Here are my 2 cents: The fact that one model that tries to predict phenomenon A uses more parameters than some other model that tries to predict phenomenon B does not tell me anything about their relative chances of success (i.e. which one is more likely to make accurate predictions). Even if they tried to predict the same phenomenon it wouldn’t tell me anything. The point is, what they are trying to predict (climate) is inherently more predictable than what you are comparing it to (weather). Re. the “massaged” models, I am not a climate modeler myself, but my general understanding of models is this: When you first develop a model you of course use real data and tweak the parameters until the model fits. That’s called learning. Then you go and run it with data that were NOT used in the development and see how well the model describes what really happened. That’s called testing.
Yes, the tragedy of human psychology. Here we are as a species, where the best and brightest among us have figured out what’s going on (in enough detail to see the writing on the wall) and have told the rest of us all about it. And yet, brains and intellect alone will not be enough. There has to be enough adrenalin and heart ache to make us all move together in the right direction. Let’s hope it won’t be too late when there is finally enough momentum. I don’t feel very relaxed about either.
To be clear, I did not say "man's impact on climate is accepted by everybody". I do claim that man's impact on climate is accepted by every science organization in the world that deals in climate or atmopheric physics, and the agencies, the National Academies of Sciences, that oversee those organizations. re: "Science is about gathering data, making a hypothesis, and testing. Consensus is irrelevant." agree with the first 3 points, but definately not the last. Consensus through the peer review process is what establishes the science as being sound science. In the case of man's impact on the atmosphere it's been a consensus, by any reasonable definition of the word, for some time now.
Without consensus, the science of AGW diminishes. Shouldn't we strive to have all science based purely on fact, with the goal of seeking pure truth? Science is not about swaying 50.1% to your viewpoint. Hmm...it now makes more sense why Dr. Nicholas Drapela of Oregon State University has been fired... I think this statement from "The American" sums it up: "A scientific consensus should be based on scientific evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with really well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that light travels about 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on catastrophic, human-induced climate change is perhaps enough by itself to justify suspicion."
Jeff said: "from my research, and understanding of mathematical modelling used in climate research, scientists used data from the [volcanic] eruptions to CREATE the model." Are you sure about that? This is my understanding: The model exists as hundreds (thousands?) of equations which describe the earth and its climate system. It can be as simple as Tamino's linked to above which only deals with the known climate forcings effects on global avg temp. Or it can be as complex as the GCMs which try to mimic as much of the climate system as possible. Data about known parameters is feed into the equations like amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, amount of solar radiation, etc. The program runs and spits out data showing how the climate system is likely to respond. So when Mt. Pinatubo erupted they had estimates of how much aerosol and dust was injected into the atmosphere, and how long it would stay there. They put this new data into the climate model, ran it and it spit out the result. The result was for a drop in global avg temp for a year or two which closely matched the real-world. At least that's my understanding.
I’ll let Larry respond to the numbers and the background of e.g. the Petition Project scientists and how these numbers compare to the number of scientists, who actually do have a background in climate science and do subscribe to what we would refer to as the mainstream scientific consensus. But there is one other thing I just can’t let you get away with: “No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that light travels about 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum ….” That’s another classic example of an argument that superficially sounds so clever but if you took just one moment to really think about it, it ought to be obvious: Any chance this may have something to do with the fact that none of these insights threatens the status quo of how people conduct their lives (at least nowadays) or asks us to get off our lazy asses and actually do something, such as get informed and change things that we are so pleasantly used to? Never mind the first item (the thing with the planets and the sun), which at one time did threaten a lot of people’s worldview, and for exactly that reason delayed the scientific consensus much beyond what would have been a truly scientific debate. Or may I mention the word evolution? Any chance there may be some parallels here?
I got a little bit too carried away with “scientific”….. haha… there was one “scientific” too many. The sentence should of course have read …”…. and for exactly that reason delayed the consensus much beyond what would have been a truly scientific debate.”
Sadly, I cannot claim credit for the above paragraph, as indicated by the byline (it originated from "The American"). However, you seem to have missed the point of my statement. Science is based on facts...ultimately determining TRUTH. Those arguments relying heavily on convincing others of "consensus" do so because they lack the evidence otherwise. As for your comments regarding the plants and sun...Yes...Copernicus did propose something that was quite different. Heliocentrism. But...the CONSENSUS was Geocentrism...and people didn't like hearing Nick's ideas. But...facts were on his side. It was a tough ride against consensus...When Galileo took up the cause, it was VERY unpopular. You see, geocentrism was the consensus. And the head of the church, the Pope argued that Heliocentrism was heresy. Galileo spent the end of his life under house arrest...because he went against the consensus. Ironic, since many believe environmentalism akin to a religion. The religion of green. Something to think about...
re: "49 former NASA scientists, the 31,000 American scientists on the Petition Project, and the 1,000 international scientists...." One of the main objectives of this blog is to demonstrate and encourage critical thinking skills, one of the most important of which is how to weigh and evaluate sources of knowledge. We are all bombarded with new information constantly from radio, tv, youtube, tweets, text messages, drudge report emails, facebook, joe blow down the street, and on and on and on. Information and opinions are endless. As I'm sure you are aware, not all information and opinions should be treated equally. There is a lot of misinformation in our society today, including information from motivated interests that is intentionally deceptive. Politicaly advertising, especially post "Citizens United" comes to mind. Perhaps you have seen examples of intentionally deceptive information yourself? It is vital that each of us be able to sort through the good information from the bad. This requires the skill of critical thinking. I had hoped that the first 3 blog posts here would be able to convey that skill, but apparently they have not been successful. Thus you have motivated me to dedicate a new blog post specific to this skill. I'll use the "49 NASA Scientists", Oregon Petition Project and "1,000 Scientists" as examples of idealogically motivated liars. Looks to be another hot weekend, I should have time. Thanks for the idea.
There is some amount of uncertainty in the current scientific consensus. I happen to believe there is little, you think there is a lot. Ok, either way, - some degree of uncertainty. The decision we are faced with is: Should we or should we not drastically reduce CO2 emissions? So let’s weigh the potential consequences, lest we make a rash decision! To do that we multiply the likelihood of something being true with the severity of what happens if it is true: What are the potential consequences of: 1) We drastically reduce carbon emissions and 1-a) the scientific consensus is true 1-b) the scientific consensus is not true 2) We do not drastically reduce carbon emissions and 2-a) the scientific consensus is true 2-b) the scientific consensus is not true You do the math. I would say the consequences of scenario 1-b) is benign (arguably, in the long run even positive for other reasons) compared to the consequences of 2-a). Therefore, even if I had reason to doubt the scientific consensus, even if I thought there was only a 50:50 chance they are right, I would still consider it wise to reduce carbon emissions. Upshot is: don’t confuse “not doing anything” with “not making a rash decision”. They are not always the same thing.
First, I hope I didn't offend you with the "zest" comment. If so, I apologize. Second, this is not the first time I have seen Pascal's Wager applied to Global Warming. BusinessWeek ran a podcast on the subject in 2007, Others postulate the same argument first applied by Blaise Pascal to the existence of God. I guess you and I see things just slightly (ever so...) differently. You see, I believe the rash decisions will be enacted by politicians because climate alarmists have incorrectly diagnosed reality. I 100% support efforts to reduce pollution. I 100% support efforts to use less energy...if the INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES TO. In fact...my whole reason for arguing this thread, and consuming incredible amounts of time, is to be the voice of reason. The science is NOT settled. The data is NOT conclusive as to the cause. Yes, the globe does appear to be increasing in temperature. But maybe it is the Earth returning to it's norm. Maybe we are 12,000 years into an interglacial period that lasts 50,000 years. Maybe we should continue to research the subject, and drop the political agenda. Truth will win.
Predicting climate is MUCH EASIER than predicting weather. Weather is fairly random whereas climate refers to long-term averages which are far easier to forecast. For example, I can tell you with much greater certainty that July will average a warmer T than December than I can tell you the high or low T on any given day in the next few days.
Jeff, the burden is now on you to prove otherwise just as it would be if you were claiming that gravity makes apples fall upward.
Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states: "Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter."
You are under the false idea that politicians are rushing to take away your freedoms. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where is that price on carbon? Cap and trade? Politicians are going out of their way to keep their heads in the sand despite the warnings from scientists, the military, health officials, and insurers. We need to reduce our emissions of carbon for the sake of our public health, national security, and economic competitiveness. Surely it is foolish to base our economic energy needs on sources that are dwindling in supply and increasing in price when, instead, we could move toward energy efficiency and cheaper-by-the-year, infinite sources such as the sun and wind. If we stay addicted to fossil fuels and do not begin investing in those technologies now, we will be buying them from China in the future instead of selling it to them. When will Americans wake up and stop being pro-China? Our policies now are helping China secure the renewable energy market and are threatening our national security. If we begin doing what is needed now YOU will have a strong voice. The longer we wait the more serious the problem becomes and the more likely that GOVERNMENT will impose solutions on YOU that you may not like. The choice is yours - don't throw it away.
You might have gotten a clue about this from something you posted and linked to the other day from NASA: http://tinyurl.com/5wkx9sm "Most scientists agree that no single piece of data will likely resolve the global warming debate. In the end, the best we can expect is a scientific consensus based on a preponderance of evidence." First and foremost are the data, facts, and evidence. The preponderance of that evidence (a consensus of evidence, if you will) leads to the consensus among scientists. They are intrinsically linked. You don't get a consensus without the preponderance of evidence leading you there. A consensus is not something that scientists just vote on willy-nilly (like American presidential elections ;) ). Continued...
You are correct that greenhouse gases warm the Earth. In fact, I have stated as such earlier in this thread. You are correct that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You are correct that human created numerical models have been created using parameterization and ensemble methods that closely resembled a limited number of known values (i.e. historical temperature for 160 years, estimated historical temperature for 750,000 years, historical atmospheric CO2 for 20+ years, estimated historical atmospheric CO2 for millions(?) of years)... With that much, we completely agree. I'm convinced. But...Larry Lazar is proposing that it is fact man caused the elevated levels of CO2, and that singular condition increased global temperatures. As you just stated...we have a pattern that matches. Yes. How many other patterns would match, Prof. Mandia? How many models have been created, or could be created, that would provide the same outcome? Aren't numerical models, by definition, biased to the model designers predefined notion of outcome? For instance, no numerical model I am aware of can successfully model atmospheric aerosols or water vapor. To my knowledge, current GCM's simulate the effect through simplified algorithms. A we have no current model for chaos...only probability density functions. I'm not a CO2 salesman. I have no benefit from its continued use. I only want unbiased truth.
I repeat a question put to you by Scott Mandia in an earlier post: "Jeff, show us how record values of CO2 are not causing the warming that perfectly matches GHG heat trapping: nights, winters, and poles warming faster than days, summers, and tropics." If you don't think there is enough evidence for AGW, can you provide any evidence to support your theory that it is just due to natural causes and that the human-emitted CO2 is having no effect?
Models? The pattern of observed climate change matches increased CO2 and we know for a fact that the net increase in CO2 is from human activities. If we never had climate models the planetary system would still be warming and that warming has been caused by increasing CO2 and other heat-trapping gases. As I stated before, it is up to you to prove otherwise. What HAS caused the warming pattern that precisly matches increased CO2 while at the same time completely masking the known physical effects of a massive increase in CO2? A dead body with a .45 cal bullet hole in the head is found in the room. There are human fingerprints on the gun and the gun is a .45. I say the murder was human-caused and that was the gun. You wish to keep telling me it might be a ghost?
You wrote: "Larry Lazar is proposing that it is fact man caused the elevated levels of CO2, and that singular condition increased global temperature" Please retract this claim. It's a blatent lie, actually two lies, which, frankly, I am considering flagging as inappopriate. I'll hold off for now pending your retraction. If you continue to misquote me, or anyone else commenting here , or misrepresent my claims, I'll ask that you be barred from posting going forward.
Please explain the difference in my statement above, and this statement from the second article: From me...."Are we to assume that means we have conclusive evidence that CO2 is the cause of climate change?" From Larry Lazar...according to NOAA, NASA, NCAR, UCAR and every other scientific orgazation that conducts research on atmospheric conditions, Yes. So, I asked if conclusive evidence exists that elevated levels of CO2 are THE CAUSE of global warming. You responded, "Yes". And in the first post, you wrote this: "there are no scientific organizations in the world that dissent with the basic claim that the earth is warming, it's primarily caused by man". Please explain how that differs from my statement. And I did not quote you. I summarized your position based on previous posts. This is the second time you have responded with an aggressive posture. As I have stated, this is your pulpit. If you believe I have misquoted anyone, on any of the 3 threads to this point, take the appropriate actions.
I can't see how they could have. The climate models existed before the Pinatuba eruption. When it erupted, climate models were used to estimate/forecast the impacts. So climate models have been verified by forecasting as well as by hindcasting.
If it was as simple as that, any backyard amateur would know what was going on. To make more informed comments, I suggest that people get up to speed on the maths used in climate models. Here's a conference (http://www.ima.org.uk/conferences/conferences_calendar/mathematics_of_the_climate_system.cfm) about "the construction and use of mathematical and computational models of the climate system, from the conceptual to the comprehensive." It covered four topics: 1. Extraction of deterministic and stochastic models from measurements and simulations of the climate system; 2. Reduced complexity models and their dynamics; 3. Confronting scientific hypotheses about the climate system with data; 4. Mathematically-based diagnostic studies of climate dynamics and statistics based on comprehensive models and reanalyses. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not going to argue about maths with people who have advanced degrees in mathematics. I'm going to wait to see what other people with advanced degrees in maths say on the topic. And what are they saying? Oh, they agree that the climate models are useful and accurate enough that we should sit up, pay attention and act now.
Countries are no longer looking to the US for leadership, but as the second biggest polluter on the planet, countries are insisting that the US pull its head out of the sand and catch up. Because greenhouse gas emissions affect the whole planet, countries that have begun to reduce their own emissions will start putting penalties on the laggards, just as the EU is doing re emissions from aircraft that fly there. Americans are not used to being followers. I wonder how they will cope?
> You don't seem to understand the concept of systemic problems. Systemic problems need solutions beyond individual choice. In my view, the extreme position that everything should be left to individual choice is naive in the extreme. That's not how human nature or society work, even at the simplest level. Jeff .. In fact...my whole reason for arguing this thread, and consuming incredible amounts of time, is to be the voice of reason. > You don't seem like a voice of reason to me. You seem like a voice of obstruction and fear. Jeff... The science is NOT settled. The data is NOT conclusive as to the cause. > That's just your personal view. It is a view supported by fossil fuel industry lobbyists. I want govt policy based on mainstream science not on industry lobbyists. In the case of climate change, mainstream scientists agree that the science is settled. Jeff...Maybe we should continue to research the subject, and drop the political agenda. Truth will win. > Your "do nothing" line is reprehensible. We should get on with fixing the problem instead of wasting time with obstructionists. You should drop your political agenda and catch up with reality. Truth has already won.
Go back far enough and general opinion was that man could not affect the climate meaningfully, then it became we could but a very long way into the future and gradually it has become considered more serious and more immediate. To move the scientific community you have to show your idea, theory, better fits the data or explains what happens. Not just as good, but better. Yet even still questions remain, wrinkles to be filled in and assumptions to be turned into solid science. Given the very conservative nature of science, the news is unlikely to be good. For example many climate modellers assume the carbon in the permafrost that melts will all be released as CO2 yet we know that much will be released as methane. We do not know how much so they assume none.
http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/global-warmingclimate-change-post-4-of-12-conversation-with-dr-michael-mann
If you are interested, please sign up below: http://www.meetup.com/STL-Climate-Reality/events/71063082/