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?
Oh, and again, the only one who continues to have a problem with the term "denier" is you.
I believe JIK was kicked off of babble in August 2005 for trolling. He still behaves the same way; he posts to complain and criticize, but has nothing thoughtful or substantial to say.
So does that astronomer discuss the effect of oceans, clouds, wind, aerosols, polar ice caps and forests on Mars? Or has he not noticed that there are some major differences between Earth and Mars?
The debate in the popular media and on websites looks very little like that in the scientific literature. It's not just the language and rhetoric that differ; it's also very much the subject matter. I think this site exists to counter all the $$ that tells the public to ignore national academies of science and instead recall that "CO2, we call it life."
"I suspect that JunkScience or World Climate Report are no better funded than David Suzuki or Realclimate."
A definite sign that you're completely out of the loop.
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"?
I said he was "apparently credible." I admit that the "apparently" was gratuitous, but when someone ignores the Martian wobble in favour of a solar effect that is not backed up by the data, I think that's suspicious.
On this whole "denier" question, I have addressed this before - and will again:
In this thread, Anonymous says: "Why has the global mean temperature peaked in 1998 and actually dropped slightly since then whilst CO2 levels were soaring?"
Now, the records from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that EVERY year since 2000 has been warmer than ANY year before 1998. In that light, I will continue to argue that anyone who says we're in a cooling trend is seriously in denial.
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.
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?"
When almost all of the AGW deniers are associated with rightwing thinktanks which receive funding from ExxonMobil, then it is naive at best to pretend there is nothing suspicious about that. When they are obviously doing PR work instead of scientific research, then you have to wonder who pays them to do PR instead of doing science. Could it be ExxonMobil, which has a huge and glaring motive to pay them to distort the truth? And when some of those same PR persons were also involved in the campaign to deny that cigarette smoke was killing people, would you not wonder about their basic motivation?
Naturally David Suzuki is going to hire PR workers. But Suzuki did not hire all those thousands of scientists who are studying the many different aspects of climate science. And Suzuki did not tell those scientists what results to find or to report. Even the Bush government could not shut up all of its US scientists, though it has done its worst to politicize and distort the science of AGW.
Suzuki is passing on the results that thousands of scientists have produced while working independently, and he is working to let Canadians know what is happening to our world, and what steps we need to take about it. He is doing PR, but it's honest PR, presenting the scientific consensus, not the corporate distortions; and discussing what it means to us. There is a difference between working for the public good and shilling for corporations.
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.
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.
Bonzo, the earth is a very complicated ecosystem. Here's your answers.
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.
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.
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.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.
"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.
'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.
"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).
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.
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.
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?