Climate Change Deniers Herald the Melt on Mars
(Facetious) Congratulations to National Geographic for having turned up another apparently credible climate change denier tucked in a far corner of the world.
Admittedly, NatGeo reports that Russian astronomer Habibullo Abdussamatov is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" when he argues that a recent melting on Martian icecaps proves that global warming is caused by the sun's rays. But Abdusssamatov gets the headline, while the overwhelming majority of credible astronomers are relegated to the second page of the NatGeo website.
It is yet another example of the media's preoccupation with lonely (sometimes looney) voices. No wonder the public remains convinced that the scientific community is still locked in a legitimate debate over climate change. When a journalistic institution like National Geographic is this careless in presenting the science, how can casual observers hope to make informed conclusions?
"Denier" Label
Johan, you use the term "IPCC dogma". Is there any difference? You are also trying to belittle your opponent. I'm surprised that you don't see that.
Actually, I too found Richard a bit quick to dismiss this guy as a crank, wihtout evidence either way... But that shouldn't distract from this post's main point, which does demonstrate a legitimate issue--the popular press not putting this guy's views in their proper context, and thus potentially (ok: probably) lending far too much credence to something that amounts so far to just a pet theory.
Anyway, it puts the lie to the deniers' thesis that the mainstream media loves AGW. No, like Hollywood, what it loves is a "maverick". The mavericks once tended to be on the AGW side, now it's the reverse...
It also puts the lie to the deniers' thesis that AGW theory is all about getting attention and thus grant money. Who do you think would have more to gain financially by appealing to the popular press? Someone in a marginal position who is not taken seriously by the journals? Or someone who claims that "the debate is over"?
Grant Money
the science is settled
BCH, if by "the science is settled", you mean a 100% perfect knowledge of everything relating to the climate, then you're right: no scientist is saying that. But that's a red herring often put forward by the "skeptics". The real issue is and has always been: is there enough compelling evidence to take action. It's not a matter of certainty, but a of risk assessment. While fairly obvious, this concept is too subtle to be included in what passes off as "debate" in this issue.
Anyway, plenty of scientists have said that it's time to take action, as you'll find here. There's little in this release that would suggest a bonanza for climate researchers, certainly nothing that would justify them risking their credibility should this climate thing be an ill-though-out hoax. In short, there's no money trail that I can see, leading from a suggestion that "the time is ripe for action".
In fact, the only money trail I can see is the one running from those who say that the bigger picture is unknown, and needs to be studied a lot more before there's a case for taking action. I'm not saying that this is in fact their motivation, just that the logic of grant funding leads to the "skeptics", not the "consensus".
I'd like to stress that this is not about "certainty", but risk assessment. Of course we shouldn't act too soon, but it's equally obvious that we shouldn't act too late, either. As with all important things in life, at a certain point we NEED to make a decision, and that's usually before we're 100% certain. The term Skepticism is often used incorrectly. Some "skeptics" are just avoiding making a proper analysis and taking a difficult decision. Others are using the term to conceal various prejudices, or use it as a shield to hide behind as they take potshots at supposed "environmentalists" or "loony lefties". Skepticism is a process, not a position.
Global Warming
There is a causal relationship
Bonzo said "Why does the graph of global mean temperature since about 1860, bear absolutely no relation to steadily increasing levels of CO2? Could it be that there is NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP?"
But you are wrong Bonzo, there is a causal relationship between increasing CO2 concentrations and retention of IR radiation. There seems to be a believe out there that this IR retention thing is something invented by climatologists. In fact, it is basic physical chemistry and was first identified over 100 years ago. So if the hundreds of thousands of climate scientists are part of an "AGW conspiracy" so are the much higher numbers of physicists and chemists who would have to be part of the conspiracy too. I don't see any of them coming out and saying the CO2 does not absorb IR radiation at certain critical wavelengths.
Causality
Not a bait and switch
BCH, you said that there was no causal relationship between increased levels of CO2 and global temperature. This is not true since there is a proven scientific reason that increasing CO2 concentrations lead to increased temperature (the IR absorption by CO2)
Maybe you meant something different by "causal relationship" than is commonly understood. If so please explain what you meant by "no causal relationship".
As for temperature not directly following CO2 concentrations, all climate scientists are in agreement that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other factors, contrary to what AGW deniers always claim, are factored in. Their contributions are known with pretty good accuracy (except for aerosols) and they can only account for minor changes in global temperature.
Causality
CO2 and other Trace GHGs High
Ozone Medium
Stratospheric water vapor Low
Land Surface Albedo Very Low
Aerosol Direct Effect Low
Aerosol Indirect & Clouds Low
Contrail Cirrus Low
Solar Medium
So we have confidence that we have a firm grasp of only one of eight possible drivers; a moderate understanding of two more and, as I interpret it, no useful predictive ability for over 60% of the factors that may affect climate. Note further that the list may not even be complete. Water vapor and recent observations about cosmic rays are not even on the list. Recent research out of Denmark and Sweden may also indicate that we don't know as much about the solar contribution as the "Medium" rating would suggest. Far from "pretty good accuracy", their contributions are only approximated. Not only is their magnitude not known with any confidence but we cannot even be sure of the sign of their contribution in some cases.You did type it
I get annoyed when people say one thing then when they are criticized for it they deny it. You typed, "Could it be that there is NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP". Now you can twist meanings but the majority of people reading that would take it that you are trying to deny that there is a causal relationship.
As for the other forcing factors, you are either misunderstanding what the IPCC said or again are trying to distort what they said. These forcings are not well quantified but they are known to be of small consequence. How do we know that? Well the models only fit when they are given a small role. Now don't start saying that "computer models are useless" because you would be completely wrong. The reason that we can be so sure on what is causing global warming is that model predictions are only able to accurately (don't believe what the AGW deniers are saying) describe the changes when these forcings are of a low order of magnitude.
The cosmic ray theory has been shown to be wrong so your arguments just don't stand up to critical review (after all, that is what science is about).
So tell me, since you do not accept the science as agreed by the IPCC, just what do you think is causing this unprecedented rate of temperature increase. Come on, you must have thought about it so please let us all know what all the scientists have missed.
Annoyed ...
One turnip is just like another
"Apparently not annoyed enough to go back and actually read my (i.e. BCH) post. I believe that Bonzo is the one that typed it".
When you are wading through a field of turnips one just looks like another. If you people want to be treated in a non-prejudicial manner then read up on some science first before you start telling all reputable scientists that they are wrong and you know better.
As for Shaviv's and Veizer's papers then I suggest you read the comments on realclimate.org. There is more than just a hint of scientific malfeasance associated with those two's work.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celestial-climate-driver/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/
You also said "to quote from my earlier post, no one (pro or con) has a clear and fact-based explanation for why CO2 and 20th century temperatures don't track ... lots of guesses but no facts. Was that something else that you didn't quite get around to reading"?
Well try reading some scientific papers (start with the various AR's from IPCC) and you will find that you are wrong. The factors you mention have been looked at and have been relegated to only minor factors in the recent unprecedented rise in global temperatures. As I mentioned previously, the models fit the actual temperature measurements, both looking forward and looking backwards (from about 1988).
Realclimate ...
The problem is that there is no correlation
BCH, cosmic rays are an interesting area of study. Unfortunately, there is no correlation between cosmic ray flux and temperature change over the last 100 years or so. There may be a correlation on a cycle of aprox 500 million years but that is not the timescale that is of interest in AGW.
If you have data that proves me wrong please present it.
As for the 11-year solar cycles well there is no discernible corresponding change in temperatures for that either.
Nigel Weiss, a prominent solar astrophysicist from the UK has looked at solar forcings and puts the amount of temperature change associated with solar changes in the past 100 years or more at about 0.2 degrees C. This is about what others have found for changes during the MWP and LIA thus solar forcing can be put forward as probably the main cause of these slight changes in background temperature change. However, the recent warming experienced over the past 100 years is much larger and is occurring at a much faster rate. The only factor that seems to fit the situation is the forcing by GHG's, CO2 in particular.
The dip around the middle of the last century is due to aerosols. All of this is well documented and accepted except by the small band of deniers who you keep quoting. That is why I get so annoyed. Start reading whole papers, not cut and paste highlights or improper interpretations coming from climatefraudit et al.
It’s all out there if you will just make the effort.
No correlation ...
BCH, the following graph
BCH, the following graph displays the causes of warming. Solar (and other natural variations) is only minuscule in its attribution to global warming. In fact, one can nearly cancel out all natural factors (or at least bring it down to 0.1 C of response) and say that human activities have caused the vast majority of the warming over the last century-and-a-half.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png
How About This Graph!
How About This Graph!
FOS is more of the fossil
FOS is more of the fossil fuel industry-funded hogwash and have no climate scientists with any real peer-reviewed publication history regarding climate change. They are a PR group, not a science group. Anyone who uses them as a scientific source rather than the IPCC, AAAS, NAS, Royal Society, CRU, NCAR/UCAR, or even NOAA are fools who have bought into far-fetched garbage similar to ideas like "aliens increase the level of gravity on Earth" or "the planet has been cooling since 1998."
The Graph ...
You said the Lyman et al.
You said the Lyman et al. paper showed a cooling in the oceans. They actually said a cooling in the UPPER ocean.
The paper includes a map of observed temperature decreases in the upper ocean on page 11. Many of the areas in blue (areas with decreases in temperature) correlate well with the areas of the ocean over which tropical cyclones are spawned or perpetuated over warmer water.
As the years 2003 to 2005 featured alarmingly high tropical cyclone seasons, it can be said that it is likely that these tropical cyclones were a principal cause of the temperature reduction in the upper ocean as tropical cyclones take significant quantities of heat from the upper oceans to survive and intensify.
Cyclone cooling ...
How much energy was "used up" melting the ice?
BCH said: "The final "unknown" is that Lyman concludes that there has been a net heat loss 3.2 * 10^23 Joules. That's a lot of energy and it must have gone somewhere. Did it heat the atmosphere? Was it re-radiated to space?"
I wonder how much of that energy loss has gone into melting the extra ice that appears to melting these days.
Anyone with any ideas or references?
Ice Melt ...
Cherry picking at best
BCH, cherry picking is not part of the scientiic method. One must read all of a report and all of the many other reports, both pro and con before one can draw conclusions. Not all reports are correct, but science does a good job of weeding out the wrong stuff from the correct ones.
There is a very good example of how a very good scientist (Nobel Prize winner in chemistry) can have a paper published in a highly regarded journal (PNAS) and be completely wrong. I refer to the paper in PNAS which shows conclusively that DNA consists of a "triple helix". As just about everyone knows, DNA is a "double helix". So, quoting one paper in the multitude of papers (and cherry picking of single sentences) is not the way science works. Any graduate student using these tactics would not have his thesis approved, in fact it would probably be called academic fraud.
Cherry Picking ...
There is a problem with your cherry picking
BCH, when you cherry pick statements and papers which disagree with the scientific consensus (and don't try and tell me that there is no consensus) and support the mutterings of a fringe band of non-scientists you are stepping outside the boundaries of how science operates. Of course you and your supporters are free to think what you want. What you are not free to do is to distort that which has been found to be the best scientific explanation. If you and the others can come up with some facts and data to back your case then we would get into a true scientific discussion. However, the only facts you can bring to the table are the cherry picks that in many cases do not say or prove what you try to make them out as saying.
As for the comment about graduate students, graduate school is, or should be, a training ground not for just scientific endeavours but moral and ethical ones as well. The conduct of science must be performed in a completely honest and ethical manner. Honesty in science is much more appreciated than scientific ability in many cases and science frauds are dealt with very seriously when they are exposed (Korean stem cell researcher). The reason for this is that if dishonesty was rampant in science we would not know whether a paper that was published in the peer reviewed scientific literature was true or not. It would be very easy for a scientist to write a completely passable paper using made up data. The peer review cannot differentiate between an honest publication and a fictitious one, only on the competence of the experimental method and whether or not the interpretation of data and the drawing of conclusions reflect what was found. Of course, if the work were important it would eventually be repeated and found to be not true. However, the majority of scientific work is never repeated since it would be difficult to publish something that already exists in the literature.
An example is a student who was working on the immunology of grafts. For a while, he convinced people he was working with, that he had a successful treatment to allow a white rat to accept an allo-graph from a black rat (it should be rejected) However, one day someone discovered that the black grafts were actually stains on the white fur put on with a black felt tip marker. The irony was that the student had top academic marks and had been accepted into a prestigious medical school for an MD degree. His career was in tatters before it even started.
As for my comments about Pauling and his “triple helix”, that was to show that the idea of two sides (two chains versus three) to any scientific argument is false. The scientific consensus has said that there is a “double helix” and that is what is accepted. See the analogy with AGW yet, BCH?
Outside the boundaries ...
Consensus
Bonzo, if you do not believe
Bonzo, if you do not believe that consensus can be achieved in science, then you must believe that there is no consensus on the existence of the force of gravity.
So, do you think we should reopen the case of the existence of gravity? Do you think we should allow those with different views to speak on this matter? (Maybe we should, then we would be able to identify the crackpots.)
Do you think we should discuss the attribution of the force of gravity? Who knows? Some people may disagree that it originates from the core. Some "innovative thinkers" may believe it is pressure exerted remotely by aliens who live on another planet.
Gravity ...
Crichton as a science source?
Bonzo, in case you found yourself in the wrong half of the library when you picked up Crichton's book it is found in the FICTION half of the library not the science section.
And it is complete nonsense to say that there is no consensus in science. How do you think things get into textbooks? They become accepted as representing the true state of the matter. Everything you read in textbooks, as opposed to the science literature, is consensus based.
There are many areas of science where no consensus has been reached and spirited debate occurs. However, the arguments put forward in these debates is science based not some irrational scribblings in a science fiction book.
Do you and other AGW deniers not see how silly you appear when all you have for support is a work of fiction?
Chrichton
I'm no climate expert.
I'm no climate expert. However, I'd wager that I have more qualifications in climate science that Crichton (having done an undergraduate honours thesis on an aspect of climatology and am planning to do a masters thesis on an aspect of Arctic climatology this fall).
I don't doubt that Crichton has high scientific credentials. (I knew he is an MD and has some extensive biological training. You didn't have to repeat this for me.) However, being an MD or having a Ph.D. in biology does not qualify one to consider themself as an expert in climate science. His numerous projects in anthropology do not qualify him to consider himself a climate expert. It's like a paleontologist considering themself to be an expert in nuclear physics. Complete rubbish!
Bonzo, why do you rely so often on Crichton instead of qualified climate scientists (i.e. climate experts) for your information on climatology? Is it that it would contradict your unfounded view that the planet is not warming or that it is not largely the result of greenhouse gas-emitting human activities? Are you trying to fit the square block into the round hole but it won't go in?
Global Warming
Global warming
You didn't read the link I
"At the moment it is just
"At the moment it is just the subject of two papers by Nir Shaviv and Jan Vizier demonstrating a link between climate and cosmic rays over long geological time periods."
If this is true, then it is as you said: "over long geological time periods," i.e. millennia-scale, not short periods like a century or so, which is what we are really concerned about. If this is true, then Shaviv's and Vizier's research is irrelevant.
Irrelevant ...
'The recent time frame
'The recent time frame doesn't seem to compute because there has been little change in cosmic ray levels over the last 50 years or so (i.e. the time frame over which they have been measured.) As the saying goes "more research is needed."'
If "there has been little change in cosmic ray levels over the last 50 years or so", then it follows that cosmic rays have little or no role in the current warming and can be struck off the list of possible causes. Therefore, more research into cosmic rays and their impact on the current warming period is not needed.
That is not to say that more research into cosmic rays is not needed at all. The need to increase scientific knowledge implies that research must be done on as many issues as possible. However, in the realm of climate change, research into cosmic rays is one of the last things that needs to be done.
More research ...
Bonzo
Bonzo, the earth is a very complicated ecosystem. Here's your answers.
... Settled ... Part 3
BCH -- you've got it
Unlike some of the other 'consensus supporters' (e.g, VJ, below), I don't think that what the DSF does is entirely different from what the MANY ExxonMobil-supported groups do (although I still side with DSF as a matter of values). But that's not the point. The point is that the real researchers are not against the consensus. Okay, Dick Lindzen is a real researcher, but he's the exception that proves the rule. And even he has done no work that actually discredits the consensus view.
Recently one of the National Post's deniers (from a series they did on dissenting scientists) joined a conversation on desmog -- Richard Tol's position was that the attribution of recent warming to anthropogenic GHG emissions in the recent IPCC SPM (>90% likelihood) was understated. He thought >99% would be more appropriate (see at bottom, Saturday Feb 10 on this thread http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-misrepresenting-climate-change-denial). I don't know what Richard Tol's motivations are and, like you, I don't care to spend much effort on it. But it doesn't take a clairvoyant to understand what the National Post was trying to do. Hint: they weren't trying to scare up funds for scientific research.
Got it ... but lost it
WHY aren't we interested in
Clarifying "Consensus"
As I see it, the distinction here is one of "applied" vs "pure" science. Fact is, in highlighting this (anthropogenic) problem, which probably needs an anthropogenic response, climate science is moving from the realm of pure science to applied. It's no longer an ivory-tower pursuit: findings have consequences.
And when it's a question of real-world action, then a different standard applies. ALL the applied sciences operate solely on the principle of consensus. How could a doctor function without accepting a body of accumulated wisdom from biologists and medical researchers--in other words, (mostly) trusting the AMA and others to come to a consensus about the most likely causes of disease, or the best treatments, etc. Ditto civil engineering, architecture... And yet all of these fields, especially medicine, continue to be updated, improved, and even proven wrong at times.
If your doctors tells you "I think I'll wait until ALL the science is in before I reach a diagnosis", fire your doctor.
Doctors
BCH, let's be consistent
Regulations ...
BCH, for your money trail,
BCH, for your money trail, go to the front page of DeSmogBlog and look at the section called "Who are the Sixty?" For instance, today's entry includes this quote:
"...Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have recieved a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years..."
You see, who needs research funding when ExxonMobil will pay you to go around giving talks and spouting nonsense? You want a money trail; check out all of the entries in "Who are the Sixty?"