By the way, just to clarify, at the end of my last post, I was not proposing that all scientists must fall into lock-step of accepting the scientific consensus. Science itself benefits from a few lone dissenters. After all, in the 1950s, G.S. Callendar was one of the few lonely scientists worried about AGW.
However, I don’t think it is realistic for those dissenters to expect that we as a society wait around until they are convinced (or die), just as it would not have been realistic for Callendar to expect society to embark on a radical change back in the 1950s to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As a personal example along these lines: A few years ago, I was asked to referee a paper for a journal that basically tried to show that something that a colleague and I had found to be true in one exactly-solvable model in statistical physics and had conjectured might be true quite generally across a broad class of such models was in fact not true if you made a fairly small change to our exactly-solvable model. They presented some fairly strong numerical evidence but their case was certainly not airtight and I was not completely convinced. However, in my referee report, I said basically, “I recommend publication of this paper even though I personally am not completely convinced by their evidence, because I recognize that I have my own strong biases. So, while the evidence is not yet strong enough to convince me, I think it is probably strong enough to convince someone without strong biases and, at any rate, it is certainly strong enough that it ought to appear in the literature.”
jshore said “That is clear from the statements that have been made, e.g., by the joint scientific academies …”
As a member of one of those academies, I can assure you that once again you have been fooled. The membership was never polled, there was no discussion of the question, there was no vote, it was simply a politically expedient statement made by the leaders of the acadamy. If you’re foolish enough to believe that represents anything other than the position of a few people who happen to be in power, I can see why you believe in AGW.
Why should the membership of an organization such as the American Physical Society be polled before its council makes an official statement on a scientific topic such as AGW? Any moron can become a member of the American Physical Society just by signing up here. The Society’s council, on the other hand, is composed of actual scientists from various areas of physics. I see no reason why the APS council should have to poll the Society’s entire membership before issuing an official opinion on any subject, as long as it doesn’t falsely state that that opinion is shared by all members of the Society.
AFAICT the American Geophysical Union has open membership too, although they seem to distinguish between “Associate Members”, who can be just any moron, and “Regular Members” who are in some way professionally associated with earth and space sciences. However, also like the APS, the AGU’s council is composed of recognized scientists active in the relevant research fields. Again, I see no reason why the AGU council should have to poll the Union’s entire membership before making an official declaration of their own about a scientific topic.
Now, if you’re claiming that you belong not to the open-membership APS or AGU but to one of the other two organizations that jshore mentioned—i.e., the National Academy of Scientists (an honorific society of distinguished scholars about 10% of whom have won Nobel Prizes), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (an internationally-selected group of professional climate scientists)—then I think I’d like a bit more evidence before I take your word for it.
Let me get this clear. What you’re saying is that you’re talking about the opinions of a few scientists, and not a “consensus” of a large number as you implied before? That the NAS report is not the opinion of the climate scientists who are members of the NAS, but of only 11 scientists? That the AAAS statement on climate change (cited in Science Magazine) was not written by climate scientists at all, it was written by two science writers and the President of the AAAS who is the Director of the Missouri Botanical Gardens … hey, wait a minute, that was my point …
JShore, you’re quite right that my statement about the Pentagon was badly phrased. You are obviously better informed than I, so can you kindly supply a link to the majority of scientists that don’t think that the Gulf Stream is shifting? From what I have been reading, most of the factors that are predicted to cause such a shift have been accelerating much faster than anyone expected just a few years ago; ITR mentioned the breakup of the Antarctic ice sheet happening ten times faster than predicted (I know, that doesn’t affect the Gulf Stream) and the Arctic ice cap has thinned very much faster than predicted (http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/water/dramatic_melt_in_arctic_icecape.htm) Also the biggest glacier in Greenland has started sliding into the sea more than one hundred times faster than normal (http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/poles/kalaall.html#abrupt) and the salinity of the deep North Atlantic has also been decreasing at an unexpected rate. What mechanisms are they proposing that would prevent all these factors from shifting the Gulf Stream?
Whoops! One sheepish correction that I realized after reading kimstu’s post: I guess I accidently wrote American Physical Society when I meant to write American Meteorological Society above. My bad. Anyway, presumably their method of passing official resolutions through their councils is similar.
I’m coming to the conclusion that Kimstu and JShore are both very sincere individuals, but they are not very streetwise. That is not an insult, it just means that they have not run into many crooks - and learnt to smell a rat at 100 yards.
Intention certainly has a handle on modelling, and appears to know the climate models’ weaknesses. That is interesting, but my view is that most models are castles built in the air - quite amusing, but basically a waste of time. I’m a bit nervous about putting things like aircraft control systems in the same class as abstract models, it lends too much credence to things where the sensors are not man made.
Mapache and I have both pointed out that Kyoto is a con.
My view is that some self interested individuals are trying to whip up an atmosphere of hysteria which they can then exploit. No conspiracy, just individuals spotting a lucrative band wagon.
Taking a hard cold look at CO2 output, regardless of what a few Indians might say, India and China are not going to postpone industrialization and the UK is not going to shut down gas, oil and coal fired power stations. For that matter cows are not going to stop farting and belching, and trees are not going to stop emitting that lethal greenhouse gas di-hydrogen monoxide.
If things are going to get unpleasant, then we need to plan for them, but to me it seems idiotic to contribute to a state of hysteria that is being whipped up and exploited by some very dubious characters.
Why do you keep repeating things like this when the misconception behind it has been explained to you.
Yeah…Those National Academy of Sciences and Royal Academy of Sciences scientists and so on are real dubious characters! And, who can trust oil companies like BP and Shell when they admit that their products are contributing to such a problem and agree that actions need to be taken? (Better to trust Exxon and Western Fuels Association [a coal conglomerate] who still stick to the view that there may not be a problem and the science is too uncertain…After all, there is nothing dubious about that self-interested view!)
Yes, the NAS / National Research Council picked 11 climate scientists to write their report on climate science. And, then the report has a review process and such. Do you recommend that we just scrap the NAS’s government advisory function or totally change the procedure it uses…Or, do you just want to choose selectively when you believe them (when they arrive at conclusions you like) and when you don’t (when they don’t)?
What you are attempting to do here intention is called “poisoning the well”, i.e., you are trying to discredit all the distinguished scientific organizations on this matter so that we are left to argue the science out ourselves and there appears to still be lots of controversies…which is exactly the same technique that the anti-evolutionists use.
I am not attempting to discredit anyone, that’s your straw man. I am just pointing out that claims that statements by scientific organizations are not evidence of a consensus of scientists, as you seem to think.
Yes, many scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming. All this means is that many people, including both yourself and many scientists, appear to have been fooled by illogical reliance on computer models. When I say the models are untested, you say it’s foolish “bureaucracy” to test them … right …
There is currently an active and vigorous debate in the scientific community regarding how much of an effect humans are having on the climate. There is also a constant attempt by those who believe in AGW to claim that either the debate does not exist, or that those who do not believe that humans have a large effect on the climate can’t be believed because of the source of their funding.
Note that neither of these claims has anything to do with the science. The debate exists, it exists no matter how hard y’all might scream IT’S SETTLED! IT’S SETTLED!, and it exists regardless of the fact that those who believe in AGW are funded by organizations that believe in AGW, and the same is true about the other side of the debate.
You mention that the report was reviewed. However, the reviewers did not necessarily agree with the report. The report says:
So we’re back to 11 scientists.
Does the NAS report indicate a consensus on the science, as you so fervently claim? Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, who helped prepare the NAS report and also served as a lead author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, says it does not. He noted in a Wall Street Journal editorial (emphasis mine),
Scientific questions are settled by facts, not by declarations, and certainly not by a non-existent “consensus”.
Mapache, you seem quite concerned about the Gulf Stream shifting and cooling Europe. In response to my request for evidence that a warming world will cost trillions and kill millions, you say it is an immediate risk:
A few notes about that:
You quote a Pentagon study about the effects. Regarding this, jshore said
Neither of you seem to understand that the Pentagon is tasked with preparing response scenarios for a wide variety of possibilities, regardless of their probability. They have to prepare for everything, so that if the most improbable things happen, we would be prepared. For example, they have a scenario involving a US invasion of Britain … should we worry about that too?
The warmth in Europe is not due to the Gulf Stream. See the study from Columbia University for confirmation.
The Gulf Stream, like all natural currents, shifts all the time. So your question “is the Gulf Stream shifting” is poorly posed. There is a good discussion of the shifting of the Gulf Stream here.
There is no indication that any shifting of the Gulf Stream poses any danger.
Thus, contrary to your claim, the shifting of the Gulf Stream is a natural phenomenon which poses no risk even if it changes.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how a couple of degrees warming will cost trillions and kill millions.
Regarding whether there is a “consensus” on climate change and whether the science is settled, this study is of interest:
… “overconfidence in projections of climate change” leads to “poor decision making” … I post this for all of you that seem to think we need to act NOW, NOW, DISASTER IS IMMINENT on the basis of inadequate, untested models and improbable scenarios.
Well, it is good that we have people like you to set them straight then. Why believe the NAS when there are people on messageboards who don’t think they are correct?
What you say is that they are not tested in the specific way you would like them to be tested which happens to be the way very mission-specific software is tested…when there is a specific clear task that the software is made to perform… and has never ever been the way that computer models are tested in the physical sciences. I am not against testing the models and, in fact, linked to a paper from Science that performed an extremely important test on the models.
The issue of funding sources has come up with people who are taking the debate out of the refereed scientific literature onto, for example, the Wall Street Journal editorial page. When you have claims being made that do not even have the minimal screening of peer review, it is indeed very wise to consider what might be the biases of the people making these claims.
Like I said, what we are back to is the accepted procedure by which the NAS advises the government on issues of science that have policy implications. What you want to do is ignore NAS reports or statements that you disagree with. So, if that is the way you want the world to work, what is now to stop, say, people who still believe that powerlines cause cancer from pressing the government and industry to spend billions of dollars relocating high-tension power lines? After all, why should we believe the scientific consensus there?
The reason that the NAS reports work is that they get a wide range of scientists together and they produce a report that synthesizes the broad range of views. As you well know, Richard Lindzen was as it happened the most skeptical (probably by far) of the 11 scientists who contributed to that report. In fact, it is a testiment to the NAS seeking a broad range of views that he was included since I can’t even think of anyone else with extreme skeptical views as strong as his who has a very credible record of refereed scientific publications in the field of climate or atmospheric science! Can you? (The next closest that come to my mind are Spencer and Christy, but neither seems to have views as extreme.)
At any rate, one can imagine that Lindzen fought hard for almost every caveat and statement of uncertainty in that final report, which is certainly his perogative. However, I do not think it was very honorable of him to then turn around after the report was published and write an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he basically disowns the opening part of the summary and then proceeds to tell everyone that the report does not say what they think it says because, for example, when they talked about the IPCC, they were just trying to be polite. In essence, what Lindzen did is used his op-ed to try to write the report he would have written if he was sole author. I think that if Lindzen had such strong disagreements with the rest of the scientists, then he should have had the cajones to write a dissension as an appendix (which I have seen done in such reports…For example, there was one in an NAS report about the CAFE standards a few years ago).
You are probably also aware that Lindzen is a quite regular op-ed contributor to the WSJ (and I suspect he may also have a hand in some of the editorials, although that is just suspicion). In one of the more recent ones, he actually endorsed the view (which seems to have originated with Bob Carter) that the global temperatures have been flat since the late 90s. This point of view, based on cherry-picking the start year as the El Nino of the Century in 1998 and drawing a line from that to, say, 2005 is such a blatant abuse of data that it can hardly be doing much for his credibility in the scientific community (which is kind of sad actually since, as I understand it, he is really a good atmospheric scientist and I can’t quite figure out why he has decided it is worth the destruction of his credibility to play these sort of games).
Strike the word “non-existent” and you could probably get me to agree with you on this statement. In fact, scientific questions are never settled. All knowledge is provisional and may need to be modified in light of new evidence. However, unless you are proposing to never use science to guide public policy, it is necessary to ask scientists to give a summary of the current state of the science in order to make policy decisions. This is where the concept of “consensus” comes in.
Regarding this issue of immediate risk: As you well know, there is a lot of inertia built in both to the earth’s climate system and our political/economic systems. As just one example, there are decisions being made today regarding the building of coal power plants which will likely have a lifetime of some 50 years. That is why even many of the energy companies are calling for the government to step forward and set up some sort of caps on carbon emissions:
And, on the general subject of the risks of the more modest end of the temperature rise forecasts: Clearly it is true that the moderate to high end of the projections are the most worrying in terms of very costly effects. However, there are concerns regarding sea level rise, extinctions of flora and fauna, and increase in extreme events such as droughts and floods (especially in poor parts of the world) that accompany even the low end of the range. I am not personally that “up” on this end of things but there is a full IPCC working group devoted to this. I think humans in modern times have tended to get a bit full of themselves in thinking that we have somehow triumphed over natural forces. Events like Katrina quickly remind us that this is far from the case. (And, of course, that is a weather event that occurred in one of the richest countries in the world. There are plenty of places where people are living much more on the edge in terms of their dependence on weather events.)
Do you actually have evidence that they have commissioned reports on such a scenario as the U.S. invading Britain? I agree that they will look at some scenarios of somewhat low probability…but I have doubts that you they really waste time on things that they don’t think have at least some reasonable possibility of occurring.
It is interesting that you, generally arguing that there is more uncertainty than people claim, are so quick to conclude from one modeling study what the correct answer to this question is. I agree that this paper is a quite compelling, interesting, and serious contribution to the discussion, but it is only one study using, I believe (correct me if I am wrong), only one of the many GCMs that you don’t trust…remember, those models that haven’t passed any groovy verification and quality assurance stuff you want to put them all through. I have cited this paper myself before but when I have, I have been careful to note these sorts of caveats.
Again, this is way too strong a statement for you to be making about an active area of science. It may well turn out to be that it is not a significant risk but to claim that this is already decided is premature and shows, I believe, a tendency to express greater certainty than is warranted when it suits your purposes to do so.
Note this part from what you posted:
So, what they are saying is that we should be paying more attention to low probability-events at the extremes, including some that are higher-impact relative to the current central estimate. That hardly sounds to me like an argument for not taking action…In fact, it is a very good argument to keep in mind when we are considering that we have embarked on (and you want to continue full-steam ahead with) is a massive experiment on the earth’s climate system. And, while we feel that we have a good enough handle on what is the most likely outcome to be plenty concerned, these folks are reminding us that less likely outcomes are possible too. Maybe you are the type of person who doesn’t buy fire insurance on your house unless you are absolutely positive it will burn down; however, some of us don’t really like to gamble in that manner!
Looks like my memory has failed again … I had thought the Defense Department had contingency plans for the US to invade Britain, so you’re right, jshore. It was actually a plan for the US to invadeCanada in the event of a war with Britain … should we worry about that?
Of course this was an old plan (1930s), but that’s the only reason we know about it. Recent plans are military secrets. The article says: “The Defense Department never talks about its contingency plans for any countries,” Whitman said. “We don’t acknowledge which countries we have contingency plans for.”
My point still stands. The fact that the Defense Department has a plan for a certain occurrence means nothing about the odds of it actually happening.
Speculating about the motives of the energy companies is … well, speculation. One of the best ways to get more oil out of old fields is to inject CO2 under pressure into the fields, to force the oil out. If the energy companies can get a CO2 tax break for doing that, as has been proposed in Australia, they’ll make millions. Which may or may not be their motive.
Also, the energy companies may have noticed that a lot of people believe in the danger of global warming. One way to sell those people fuel is to say that the company is really true green. Don’t have to actually do anything about it, just state it, and people like yourself might buy more of their products. Which may or may not be their motive. But I digress …
The only proven technology that can currently supply the energy needs of the world without CO2 is nuclear. Are you suggesting that RIGHT NOW we should start replacing planned coal plants with nuclear plants?
Because if not, what can we do NOW about the power crunch?
Look, if there were some magical way right now to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% at a reasonable cost, I’d be all for it. But solar and wind aren’t going to do it. Kyoto isn’t going to do it. Cutting back the world economy won’t do it either, because that always hurts the poor more than the rich. Cutting back the economies of the developing world won’t do it, China is in second place for CO2 emissions, is building a coal-fired plant per day, and won’t join anything resembling Kyoto. And India is not far behind.
But if you have such a plan, yes, let’s go for it. I’m not advocating “no action” as you seem to think. I’m advocating “no action that will hurt more than it helps”, and 'no action that costs a lot and produces no results", and “no action based on untested, unverified models”.
…
Somehow, it seems you completely missed the problem which is the point of the article. You seem to think the problem is that we may miss low probability/high risk forecasts. That’s not the problem, it is a result of the problem.
The problem is that there is no way to assign probability to the model forecasts. Thus all of the computer scenarios are treated as equally probable, those that project wild heating and those that project no heating at all. We cannot say whether any of them are “low-probability” or “high-probability” events. This is in part because, as I said before, we have no benchmark tests, no V&V, and no SQA for the models. A few models show cooling over the next century. Is that high, medium, or low probability? We don’t know. And since we don’t know, it is stupid to make decisions based on an extremely wide range of forecasts, any one of which could be right. That’s the problem.
A further reason we don’t have probabilities for the model forecasts is that there have been no studies of error propagation through the models. Since our input data is unreliable, we know the output forecasts must be unreliable as well … but for a given error in the input data, how much does that change the forecast? We don’t know.
Finally, do I buy fire insurance for my house? Certainly, but the insurance will pay off the value of the house if it burns down. Since Kyoto will make an immaterial difference in future temperature, Kyoto as insurance is like paying $1,000 per year for a fire insurance policy that will only pay me $20 if my house burns down. Do you buy that kind of fire insurance? You keep saying that Kyoto is just a “first step” … but do you buy that kind of fire insurance as a “first step” towards getting your house properly insured?
This conclusion sounds peculiar. I don’t advocate “proof by authority”, but it just sounds fishy to me that some amateur on a message board should be able to state so categorically that so many professional climate scientists are being “fooled” and “illogical” about such a fundamental issue as reliability of models.
AFAICT, climate scientists are aware of the incompleteness of existing climate models, and don’t try to hide the fact that many of their predictions are uncertain. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are no use at all, and I’m skeptical of the proposition that all the scientists who do consider the models somewhat trustworthy are just being “illogical” and “fooled”.
For one thing, I remember this same type of incredulity being offered about ten years back about the basic proposition of the climate currently undergoing a warming trend. Now that the existence of the warming trend is widely accepted, the climate skeptics are moving the goalposts and demanding ever-greater certainty before they’ll believe the next prediction.
Which individuals, exactly? And how did they manage to “whip up” so much “hysteria” in the vast majority of peer-reviewed research by professional climate scientists? What exactly is the “lucrative band wagon” for the majority of scientists who accept the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming?
The models for climate change are definitely rife with uncertainty in various ways, but they’re a lot more logical and consistent than your vague and illogical model of an “atmosphere of hysteria”.
If things are going to get unpleasant, how will we know that in a way that you’re willing to accept? Any time we point out that reputable climate scientists have offered further evidence that things are going to get unpleasant, you just wave it away as being part of a “state of hysteria” being “exploited by dubious characters”. How exactly do you recommend that we “plan for” potential “unpleasant” consequences if you’re not willing to accept any of the evidence or predictions concerning them?
This conclusion sounds peculiar. I don’t advocate “proof by authority”, but it just sounds fishy to me that some amateur on a message board should be able to state so categorically that so many professional climate scientists are being “fooled” and “illogical” about such a fundamental issue as reliability of models.
AFAICT, climate scientists are aware of the incompleteness of existing climate models, and don’t try to hide the fact that many of their predictions are uncertain. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are no use at all, and I’m skeptical of the proposition that all the scientists who do consider the models somewhat trustworthy are just being “illogical” and “fooled”.
For one thing, I remember this same type of incredulity being offered about ten years back about the basic proposition of the climate currently undergoing a warming trend. Now that the existence of the warming trend is widely accepted, the climate skeptics are moving the goalposts and demanding ever-greater certainty before they’ll believe the next prediction.
Which individuals, exactly? And how did they manage to “whip up” so much “hysteria” in the vast majority of peer-reviewed research by professional climate scientists? What exactly is the “lucrative band wagon” for the majority of scientists who accept the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming?
The models for climate change are definitely rife with uncertainty in various ways, but they’re a lot more logical and consistent than your vague and illogical model of an “atmosphere of hysteria”.
If things are going to get unpleasant, how will we know that in a way that you’re willing to accept? Any time we point out that reputable climate scientists have offered further evidence that things are going to get unpleasant, you just wave it away as being part of a “state of hysteria” being “exploited by dubious characters”. How exactly do you recommend that we “plan for” potential “unpleasant” consequences if you’re not willing to accept any of the evidence or predictions concerning them?
I had already admitted that it had little to do with the odds. Having seen your link on plans to invade Canada, I must agree with you that that provides evidence that it might have essentially nothing to do with the odds. Those people at DoD must just have too much money or time on their hands!
It sort of amuses me when those of us who point out that energy companies like Exxon and Western Fuels Association may be a wee-bit biased when they fight the science of global warming (or fund scientists who do), we get attacked for it. However, when some of the energy companies finally come around and actually accept the science, you dream up all sorts of complicated motives for them to do so. I am not arguing that the motives that you dream up might have a little bit of influence but I sincerely doubt they would be strong enough to pull them over to doing this even if they thought the science was dubious.
You ever hear of negawatts? Also, I should point out that there are better or worse choices even if one goes with a new coal plant. For example, some designs are a bit more expensive up-front but would be much more amenable with retrofitting with carbon sequestration technology.
But, again, we are getting ahead of ourselves. I imagine if we were simply running out of fossil fuels more imminently than we actually are, I doubt you would be as full of doom-and-gloom as you are in light of restrictions imposed by a treaty (or an imagined law…e.g., if we adopt a cap-and-trade system here in the U.S.). My guess (correct me if I am wrong) is that you would be waxing philosophical about how wonderful the market is at solving such problems of scarcity. Well, I’d like to give the market a chance to solve this problem. And, the only way to do that is to let the market know that the problem exists.
I’m not wedded, in particular, to an emissions cap. A carbon tax would be another option. However, just letting everyone continue to use the atmosphere as a free sewer of greenhouse gases is, in my view, not an option…or at least not a very wise one.