Regular readers may be familiar with James Hansen, a climatologist who works for NASA. He has been tireless in advocating that we do something about global warming before it does something to us (if it isn’t already too late), and is an outspoken critic of the Bush administration which, to be honest and fair, is the most antiscientific administration ever seen in this country.
Hansen has written an article about his dealings with this increasingly antiscientific government. This is an interesting and infuriating article; I want to scream when I read things like this. Reuters has more on Hansen as well.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is being taken to court over global warming. This is also interesting, as the case rests on the details of the 1970 Clean Air Act and whether the EPA can regulate emission of carbon dioxide. An appeals court was split on the decision, so the Supreme Court is taking it up. I’ll be very curious to see how this turns out. While I think the Bush White House is guilty as sin on a long long list of antiscience endeavors, global warming is probably the least likely place they will budge, given how much money is behind denying the reality of it. But maybe with this court case, the climate will indeed change.
Coming up later today: Chilly Climate, Part II
Oops! I forgot to tip my sun-blocking straw garden hat to long time BABloggee and BA friend Cindy Taylor for sending me the link to Hansen’s article.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Gee Phil, the experts couldn’t get it right 6 months in advance and were supposed to believe their predictions 50 years into the future. And who might be making money if we follow Al Gores advice. As he flies around the world to tell us not to. http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHKNBE0VE.html
November 27th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
There is a large difference between predicting short-term weather and long-term climate.
-Weather is mostly dependent on the specific state of the atmosphere at the start of the forecast period. Mess up your diagnosis of the atmosphere’s current state, and there goes your forecast. Unfortunately, our current ability to observe the details of the atmospheric state is highly limited in many cases (e.g. over the ocean).
-Climate is much more dependent on the bulk amounts of energy being transferred between space, the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land. Unlike weather, the specific atmospheric state at one point in time is not that important in affecting future climate; the atmosphere will rapidly absorb or burn off excess energy to reach dynamic equilibrium again. In terms of global warming, the basic three most important quantities to measure and predict are solar radiation entering the atmosphere, the solar radiation reflected by Earth and clouds, and the infrared radiation leaving the atmosphere. If there is an imbalance in the three, you get global climate change.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Phil love your site but I’d like to see some balance to this climate change argument. This is far from a settled question in the scientific community.
The question is not whether greenhouse gasses affect the climate, but whether those changes are minor (or insignificant) or the determining factor. The media and media savvy scientists clearly believe the latter and are attempting to alter public policy based on this assumption which I don’t think is backed up by science.
When you look at the history of climate change since the end of last ice age, it has gone through monumental changes which are certainly not directly related to greenhouse gasses. What’s strange to me is how this fact is rarely covered in public discussions on the subject. When it is discussed, it is by misleading articles such as this one.
http://www.livescience.com/environme…ures_high.html
If you actually take the time to read the study, it only analyzes data from the past 100 years or so, when there is accurate climate data. In the abstract it makes the Speculation that temperatures are nearing a 1 million year high – wholly unsupported by accurate data – but that is what makes the headlines.
Most climate studies of the past several thousand years based on historical records or based on proxy data indicate that current temperatures are not outside the level of previous maximums, most notably the midevil warm period where all evidence indicates that temperatures were about 1 degree C warmer than they are today (certainly in North America and Europe). What caused this warming and why was this period followed by a dramatic cooling of 4-5 degrees C that lasted centruries? This is not well understood and when it is discussed, there is an attempt to display data that tries to contradict any variation in previous temperature data – such as the hockey stick graph which has been discredited. There is a pretty good argument that the current rise in temperatures is simply a return to normal interglacial temperatures after the end of the previously cool period that ended in the mid-1800s.
My personal belief is that climate change is primarily driven by solar variation. It’s hard to dispute that the most direct relationship between previous temperatures is with proxy data on solar activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
…but I am not so arrogant as to believe this is certainly true, but there are clearly some politicians that are attempting to squelsh debate on this subject and I’m not talking about the Bush administration.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
I’ll be very curious to see how this turns out. While I think the Bush White House is guilty as sin on a long long list of antiscience endeavors, global warming is probably the least likely place they will budge, given how much money is behind denying the reality of it. But maybe with this court case, the climate will indeed change.
I hope you’re not advocating having the SCOTUS decide this. That’s all we need, the courts dictate policy now. Er, I mean, again. Great for the democratic process, that. Why have a Congress and Executive at all?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
The following bit from page 5 of Hansen’s article caught my eye:
The actions he describes are hardly a “new low”; creationists have been doing this sort of thing for years.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
ThomasL:
About the history record- You need to make the distinction between present global mean temperature and future temperature. While the current temperature may not be the maximum in the past million years, the forecasted temperature range a century from now is clearly above any temperature in the past million. There isn’t much reason to assume that the current trend will take a nosedive any time in the near future, either.
About greenhouse gas roles in climate – yes, there are several variables that can trigger global climate change, such as a warming trend. However, noting that most warming trends are followed by increased atmospheric carbon concentration, and knowing carbon dioxide’s radiative effects, most paleoclimate scientists find that while many things start warming trends, the enhanced greenhouse effect finishes them, contributing something around 50% of the total observed warming.
Yes, there is theory involved, but unless you want to go back in time and measure the states of molecules one at a time, theory can’t be avoided. The atmosphere does not come with a Rosetta’s Stone, unfortunately.
On solar variation- There was a recent paper that cast even more doubt on the solar-based warming hypothesis. See
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5803/1253
I honestly have no idea what you mean when you claim some politicians are trying to suppress research on the sun’s effects on climate change. This is an issue addressed quite a bit in the relevant literature. The main reason you don’t see more people claiming the sun is the primary influence is probably because there is little evidence that the sun is the primary influence. You might have noticed that the sun’s intensity hasn’t agreed with the Earth’s warming trend in the last two decades or so.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
It may be “far from a settled question,” but only because it’s far past that point. Climatologists have no doubt as to the reality of Global Warming. Just go search out scientific papers on the issue, and see how many you can find that show any doubt about it. Go ahead, I’ll be here when you get back.
Find any? Didn’t think so.
And please don’t give us the old appeal to balance. You don’t go out and balance fact with fiction. Do you see people complaining about “balance” every time gravity is brought up? That’s because there isn’t any legitimate science on the other side. Ditto Global Warming. (Ditto Evolution for that matter.)
November 27th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Just another article to show that its not all settled and that there may be some motives that are not about making the trees bloom and the skies sunny.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
November 27th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Climatologists have no doubt as to the reality of Global Warming.
Ahh, the old chestnut. The question to be answered is not whether or not there is GW; it’s whether or not humanity is causing it. THAT question is far from settled.
The IPCC report based largely on Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ says that CO2 accounts for about 2.6% of the .6 degree temperatue increase. Leaving aside the serious doubts about Mann’s methods and results, is this tiny increase worth dismantling Western civilization? Should we spend $15 trillion dollars that could be used for such things as housing, schools, potable water, etc.? The recent UN Economic summit didn’t think so.
In the 70’s, the consensus of climate science was that we were about to enter a new ice age. There was talk of spreading coal dust on the polar ice caps to melt them. Too bad we didn’t rush right out and follow that advice!
It’s amazing that anyone would claim that the sun doesn’t affect global temperature. There’s a clearly, long established coorelation between solar intensity and sunspot activity. for example (which is what makes the Maunder Minimum so interesting). How about the recent research about cosmic radiation and cloud formation, with the related fact that the sun’s magnetic field has doubled in strength, thus blocking cosmic rays and inhibiting the formation of those clouds (which have a cooling effect)?
These things need to be studied. When I hear Al Gore dismiss anyone who questions his line on GW as ‘a tool of the polluters’, or read that GW skeptics are just like Holocaust deniers, I get a chill down my back. Is that good science?
November 27th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Sorry if I am a nuisance, but atmospheric science is my bag…
On the hockey stick:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
I think you need to recheck your numbers. Besides the fact that the 2001 IPCC report (as well as the upcoming 2007 report) is not “based” on the hockey stick, there is something grossly incompatible with a warming affect of 2.6% when the radiative forcing from carbon dioxide is larger in magnitude than any other forcing on the chart. Perhaps you meant to say that CO2 provides around 2.5 area-average Watts of radiative forcing? That is a very significant amount.
On the sun: Of course climatologists recognize that the sun has significant effects on global climate. They aren’t that naive. However, regardless of how influential the sun can be, it is not the most significant cause of the current warming trend. How can you say the sun is to blame when the sun hasn’t increased greatly in intensity over the past couple of decades, during the most rapid rise in global mean temperature this past century?
On cosmic rays: The “research” on cosmic rays is apparently highly dubious in most circles. See Real Climate for more detail (I am not the foremost expert on the issue).
In general, the issue of humanity’s role in climate change is a lot firmer than you suggest. We know that CO2 warms the planet, we know that CO2 concentrations are increasing, and we have a pretty good idea of where that CO2 is coming from (it isn’t volcanoes).
November 27th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Honestly when anyone starts harping on the “discredited” or flawed or whatever Hockey stick graph I just stop listening. I would have hoped that the NAS report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/
would have fixed this but apparently not.
When the Royal Society writes Exxon to ask them to get out of funding flawed climate change research you really do have to start asking yourself where this “controversy” is coming from.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
P
November 27th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
3 known ice ages over the eons and not an SUV to be found in a single core sample. That seems to show some real global warming and cooling and not a single bit of human influence.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
When reading the Hansen article it is pretty much beside the point where your opinions lie on the global warming debate.
Most of us try to base our opinions on empirical data- either directly, or indirectly through reading the opinions of experts who have looked at the data.
The NASA Earth Science budget has been slashed. It would seem that humanity is being deprived of the vital information it needs to make confident decisions on just how serious global warming will be.
Without research and data collection- we are all just blowing hot air about global warming.
(Can I remind people to actually read the article. It is interesting)
November 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
jasonB: “3 known ice ages over the eons and not an SUV to be found in a single core sample. That seems to show some real global warming and cooling and not a single bit of human influence.”
Wow…I guess that means that mankind has never hunted any animal species to extinction since animals were going extinct long before we came along.
I feel so much better about myself.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Some information some of you maybe interesting in.
From an interview with William Gray of hurricane forecasting fame,
“And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.”
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4403
and another quote from him,
“Plenty of young people tell me they don’t believe it,” he says. “But they won’t touch this at all. If they’re smart, they’ll say: ‘I’m going to let this run its course.’ It’s a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way.”
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
so suppression happens on both sides.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Putting aside my opinions on global warming, I still have a problem with this paragraph that Hansen defends (trying not to remove any of the context while keeping it short):
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue…
Now, however, the need is for demonstratably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions…
And so on. Is he condoning the use of scare tactics to focus more attention on a specific scientific issue? While his intentions may be noble, you can’t use fear to hook an audience and then tell them, “Just kidding about the 10C increase in global temperatures over the next 50 years. But while you’re here, we’ve been doing some reasonable predictions that put the number around 1C. So it could be anywhere in between that.” Especially when you have already reprimanded that audience (the public and policy makers) for being relatively ignorant concerning scientific issues.
As a scientist, I am completely behind the research of alternative fuels and energy sources. But I will not pretend like scaring an ignorant public is the correct way of going about it.
Can somebody explain that paragraph to me if I interpreted it the wrong way? It just seems to me like he is supportive of the poor PR tactics as long as it supports his viewpoint.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Daffy,
I’m glad you feel better. If you wish to discount the various historical writings of temperature changes (not as large as ice ages, but significant ups and downs from the norm) feel free to give up your current modern standard of living. I choose not to on inconclusive evidence.
If it was really that bad should the “dignitaries” of various countries really fly to, and show up in enormous limosines to global warming summits? I’m not a big believer in ‘do as I say, not as I do’. When people talk about raising taxes to cure emmisions I tend to think, “How does money in thier pocket out of mine help the environment?” Considering most goverments are more wasteful than you or I could ever hope to be I see no reason whatsoever to give them more resources to squander. Can a bureaucrat better decide how you or I live AND conserve resources?
November 27th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
jrkeller- I’m not sure that calling any body of scientific research ‘a hoax’ is such a good idea if you want the respect of your colleagues.
Is it not enough to claim that the opposing group’s conclusions are flawed (and give reasons why)?
BTW- did you read the Hansen article (linked to at the top of the page)? Hansen does outline the difference between useful skeptics who provide much needed criticism and trouble-makers who prefer to distort the facts.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
I have a problem with the paragraph that Hansen tries to defend from Michaels’ out-of-context quoting. I won’t paraphrase it here for fear of doing the same, but for those who read it:
Does it sound to you like he is condoning the use of scare tactics to attract attention to the issue of global warming? You can’t scare the world with outlandish claims and then tell them, “Just kidding about the 10C increase in global temperatures over the next 50 years. We have done some REAL calculations and the number is around 1C. The other number came up when we were testing the limits of our climate models.” Especially when you have already berated the world (specifically, the public and policy makers) for being ignorant on the issue of climate science. How can you expect them to understand your more probable numbers while you throw around much larger ones which you know will garner all the headlines?!?
I support research into alternative energy from a scientific standpoint. I don’t believe we need to (or find it morally justifiable to) scare the public into supporting our scientific endeavours. It seems to me like Hansen is reprimanding the contrarions for spouting false claims about the issue while he supports false claims that press the issue in his favor. If there is one thing science or myself can’t handle, it’s hypocrites.
If anyone believes I am interpreting that paragraph the wrong way, please feel free to explain. I’m not afraid to admit I’m wrong.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
First of all, I know the point of this original posting was to comment on scientific censorship and the Hansen article. I recognize that science can best progress if it is outside of political influences, and Hansen may have experienced some censorship in this regard. That is not a good thing and Phil is right to point it out. However, I would like people on this board to recognize that there is a great deal more stifiling of debate from people on the other side of the issue. Dr. William Gray, a known sceptic of human induced climate change, would argue that this bias was a result of having his funding cut for example.
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue/
A few points here. Let’s distinguish the facts
- It is a fact that global mean temperature has increased over the past 150 years with a noticable spike in the past 20-30 years
- It is a fact that the co2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased from about 300 ppm to 380 ppm during this time and the only logical cause is human activity and that future trends hold up this level will increase by about 10 ppm per decade.
- It is a fact that the current global mean temperature has not exceeded previous maximums over the past 1000 years, let alone the past million. Even the real climate site, which is not exactly an unbiased source, does not dispute that the vast majority of studies recognize this.
- It is also a fact that global temperature variations over the past several thousand years are comparable with recent variations. We can argue whether they are as sustained or can be attributed to specific causes or not but they exist in the temperature record.
Now we enter the realm of speculation as to the cause of the recent temperature increase and possible future trends.
Many see the temperature rise and the co2 rise during this period and make an assumption they must be related. I don’t dispute this is possible. I have yet to see a climate study that definatively makes this correlation. I’ve read many abstracts that speculate this point but nothing that proves it.
As for future trends, the climate models don’t take into account other factors over this period because there is not accurate data. Yes, there is some proxy data on solar activity, particulate matter from volcanic activity and ocean current oscillations but this is spotty and highly open to speculation. The only solid numbers that exist based on the known climate factors is the co2 levels and this is what the climate models are based nearly entirely on.
But no climate model exists that has accurately forecasted previous variations in climate over the past several decades, or serveral centuries. So how can we rely on these to predict future trends? Yes there are some climate models that claim to have made a correlation on a much shorter time period (previous 10-15 years), but even the proponents of these recognize that it will require another decade of data to validate the models.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Yes I read his article. When I see an article with “swift boating” and “stealth budget” in it, I see a piece not worth reading, though I did. These terms are just to inflame a desired group of people, just like the term liberal media or secular humanist.
Parts of his article are wrong. In the section where he writes about the 20% reduction in Earth Science funding, he makes some statements which are not true. There are plenty of ways that the infrastructure cost can be reduced. First, it is false to say that federal employees can not be fired. It is called a RIF (Reduction in Force). Second, people can be reassigned to other NASA centers. In Houston, several civil servants have come from Glenn in Ohio. Third, NASA could also do the forced retirement bit that it did during the Clinton years. (It wasn’t truly a forced retirement, but when you have the NASA adminstrator talking about RIFs, calling the workforce “too stale, male and pale” and then offering retirement bonuses and early outs, its basically a forced retirement). Third, don’t hire anyone new and let attrition take care of getting rid of people.
I also feel he was misleading when it comes to new missions. The STEREO mission just launched (CloudSat in April 06), two Earth mission are planned for launch in 07 (AIM and THEMIS), two are planned for launch in 08 ( Ocean Surface Topography Mission, Orbiting Carbon Observatory) and one for 09 (Aquarius). There are also a half dozen satellites in orbit right now that if the powers that be wanted to, could end funding for but haven’t.
If met James Hansen and this reduction topic came up, my comment to him would be welcome to my world, because the funding cuts that he’s seeing now are what I saw happen to manned space flight during the 1990’s under Clinton. That’s what happen when you get a new administration and the leadership decides that NASA needs a new direction. That’s what happened under Clinton, he took a new direction from Bush the elder’s plan. Personally, I think that both Clinton’s and Bush’s cuts are/were shortsited, because you get rid of the talented people and it takes a long time to get new people.
With regards to Bill Gray, his point and my point too is that if you’d don’t follow the status quo, with regards to global warming you don’t get federal funding. In my former life as researcher, lack of funds = death of project. IMO, that’s suppression.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Jason, with all due respect my only objection to your position was that your “evidence” against man-made global warming was irrelevant.
I don’t want to give up my standard of living either; and I sincerely hope you are right. The evidence suggest otherwise.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:12 am
The Data being collected regarding human induced climate change isn’t just from one scientific field. There are countless sources from archaeometeorology, to paleobotany, to ice core samples, to C12/C13 ratios, to CO2 Fixation, and the list goes on and on. Those who claim that human induced climage change is not occuring, must be politically motivated and not very well read. It’s not that the media is jumping on the global warming bandwagon, but that scientists from vastly different fields are converging on one general conclusion. If those who are blinded by ignorant skepticism, or lack of thorough research into the issues wish to proclaim their ignorance to human induced global warming, then they are no different then creationists.
All this debate reminds me of the archeological evidence of the severity of the environmental impact on the Easter Islanders. Being in a closed system, they did what all humans do, use the resources at their disposal to control their environment, and forget to look forward at the finite nature of their surroundings. There can only be so many trees to chop down, birds to eat, fish to catch, etc.
Earth is itself a closed system, and you cannot exploit the available resources and expect science to control the equilibrium. The problem with tipping the scales is that at some point, a positive feedback loop develops and it takes a very long time (and probably a large number of species’ extinctions) for equilibrium to re-establish. To all the human induced global warming doubters, I’d suggest you learn to appreciate cockroaches. Once a cascade reaction starts (say methane hydrates bubble out from the sea floor or the permafrost under Siberia), the only thing left of human inpact would be those very roaches surviving on the junk food in your cupboard.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:34 am
It was so great in the 90’s when we had a liberal Dem in the White House.
I mean there was No pollution at all!! All factories run on liberal hot air which we all know contains nothing. Everybody rode bikes to work and we all danced around a fire and sang kumbaya, what a wondrous time it was!
Then that evil George W. Bush took over and is in the process of completing his plot to kill us all with chemicals and pollution. We all know this is true because he is responsible for everything from terrorism to sunspots! He is the devil!
November 28th, 2006 at 7:54 am
Amazing the irrationality that this topic generates.
Check the records: environmental groups gave Clinton very low scores and deservedly so.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:33 am
[...] Then I read Phil Plait’s BadAstronomy blog today and I just feel sick. Chilly Climate pt. 1 and Chilly Climate pt. 2. Please read his blogs themselves, but in short: Part 1 deals with the blind, ideological hatred this administration has exhibited against science and reality. And why should they not, when just about every major member of the administration owns, has owned, is a major stock holder, and/or is on the board of an oil company who has a vested interest in refusing to acknowledge global warming. And when the political party they belong to is in office chiefly because of the work of theocratic religious zealots who detest the concepts of evolution, safe-sex, and stem cells, they need to keep them happy in the bed they share. [...]
November 28th, 2006 at 10:20 am
William Gray’s research is hardly being “stifled”. The problem he suffers from is that he actually needs to do research, at least in line with 21st century atmospheric science. It seems his idea of investigating climate change is to use a 1960s pre-computer thought experiment approach to explain the unknown. For example, he loves to attribute global warming, the recent hurricane trend, and just about everything under the sun to the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, because it seems logical in his mind, and that’s that. This despite the fact that coupled atmosphere-ocean models cannot reproduce many of his theoretical claims, but then Gray turns around and says all models are crap. This is why he does not have a large amount of support in the atmospheric science community away from tropical meteorology. It isn’t because other people don’t like him as a person, or because they want to see their opponents wither away into oblivion (as Gray has joked about before).
You want to see how a credible global warming skeptic is treated in the atmospheric science field? Look up the Roger Pielke father-son team (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/). They are skeptical of many mainstream climate science claims, but they argue respectably and with significant rigor. They are taken seriously because they do much more than blow hot air and whine to the media and politicians, unlike certain other warming deniers. The claim that pro-global warming scientists are attempting to snuff out dissent is rubbish. It is fiction. Please don’t let a few talking heads on the boob tube fool you. Read the literature yourself if you don’t believe me.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:10 am
On the hockey stick (or: the disappearing middle ages):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
November 28th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Brant D,
I rarely use TV for any information, and for science information hardly ever. I always try to mind the primary source. I’ve been fooled way too many times to believe any new that comes from the TV. My TV is used only for entertainment purposes only. (A good example of this misinformation can be found by looking up quotes attributed to either Al Gore or Dan Quayle. Most of their supposed quotes never happened or have been modified slightly to make them look dumb.)
November 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Lovely graph here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/nwarm05.gif
Notice the key word Europe on the bottom graph. Despite what Europeans thought back then (and sometimes think today), Europe is not the center of the planet. “Global mean temperature” means just that: global mean. The warm period parts of Europe enjoyed during the medieval times was not a global event. That’s why the Medieval Warm Period signature is greatly reduced when the global average temperature for the same time period is calculated.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Back to the Hockey Stick are we? Seems like in order to prove human induced warming, there is always an attempt to deny any past temperature variations in order to say that what we are experiencing now is out of the ordinary
Here is a good reconstruciton of all the accepted global mean temperatures over a period of 1000 years and going back to the last glacial period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Please note the ONLY temperature reconstruction that claims that temperatures are above the norm for either period is the discredited Mann graph.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
ThomasL, the “discredited” Mann graph? You mean the one backed by the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the most august scientific body on the planet? That Mann graph?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
John said:
>I hope you’re not advocating having the SCOTUS decide this. That’s all we need, the courts dictate policy now. Er, I mean, again. Great for the democratic process, that. Why have a Congress and Executive at all?
A lawsuit between several states and environmental groups vs. the Federal Government via the EPA, filed in federal court and appealed through the legal process first to the district court, and now to the Supreme Court, and somehow it isn’t appropriate for them to review? It is the Supreme Court’s mandate to interpret the law. If that interpretation has repercussions on the actions to be taken by the Executive or Legislative branches, that is a part of the process. They are being asked via the lawsuit to interpret the Clean Air Act with respect to what it tells the EPA it can and must do. Sounds exactly like a legal question the Supreme Court is supposed to address.
Steve S said:
>Putting aside my opinions on global warming, I still have a problem with this paragraph that Hansen defends (trying not to remove any of the context while keeping it short):
>Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue…
Now, however, the need is for demonstratably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions…
>Can somebody explain that paragraph to me if I interpreted it the wrong way? It just seems to me like he is supportive of the poor PR tactics as long as it supports his viewpoint.
It sounds more to me like he is letting them off the hook for any past behavior in an attempt to redirect their current efforts. The whole “may have been appropriate” structure looks like a rhetorical device of allowing the person the possibility there was some justification for their action so as to seem reasonable enough for them to listen to you, rather than starting by calling them idiots and then trying to get them to agree with you. Consider the alternative:
“You flaming moron, what possible justification could you have for exaggerating the consequences and distorting the real conditions just to get attention? Please change your strategy.” Doesn’t sell as smoothly, does it? It’s called being diplomatic.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
[...] “Chilly Climate, part I and part II“. Ciência na América, no Bad Astronomy; [...]
November 28th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
First, in regards to the article BA wrote about, I think cutting the NASA Earth Science budget and altering NASA’s mission statement are horrible moves. This needs to be fixed immediately.
Second, on the more important topic of global warming, I have to admit that I have been “on the fence” for a long while about the CO2 issue. I believe that I am in the majority of most Americans with this perception. As many others have said, a current global warming trend is very apparent. However, for reasonably intelligent people like me, it is difficult to distinguish fact from embellishment. There have been many reports (most from gov’t agencies sponsored by US/EU/UN) that have clearly been made to look like the amount of warming occurring is greater than it actually is, which leads me to doubt these same reports predictions of future trends and the reported causality of these trends.
So. Being a reasonably intelligent person, I decided to research this topic on my own time. I have read many discussions/reports/articles/rants/ect. on science, environmental, political, and economical blogs & websites. But everywhere I go, the argument is always the same. Nobody on either side of the issue can convince with resounding evidence that human influence is or is not the direct cause of the current warming trend.
What is then wrong here? Everyone is focused on the problem. Not the Solution. First of all, what are the facts?
1. Global warming is occuring.
2. CO2 levels have risen.
3. The higher CO2 levels are most likely caused by humans, but not definitely.
4. The cause of the warming trend cannot be directly correlated to the higher CO2 levels.
5. Global warming may or may not be a bad thing. This is NOT certain.
6. Reducing our CO2 output cannot hurt the environment, and will most likely help.
7. Major changes in CO2 pollution could have severe economic impacts.
So what do we do? The only rational course is to assume that CO2 output needs to be reduced in order to minimize our impact on global warming trends. But we have to do it in a way that does not undermine the world economy.
When I realized this, I began looking for solutions. And I found very little realistic solutions being offered by scientists or politicians or environmentalists. Scientists and environmentalists are not economists, and politicians are money-grubbing….. Well. You know.
I was beginning to get worried that nobody was thinking about solutions when I found this great article written by Gregg Easterbrook, most known for his articles on the NFL. A sports writer, you say? Not really. He’s actually just a fan who writes a great column for espn.com. His main journalistic focus is in economy, politics, etc. Please. Read this column about solving CO2 polution. It may not be the final or only answer, but it will get you thinking about the solution. Not the problem.
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.htm
I’m not trying to insult you or tell you how to run your websites, but please, influential and intelligent bloggers/debaters, start thinking about and talking about realistic solutions. It will only help your case. If you feel very strongly that we need to change as a society, then try to figure out HOW we can change. Stop arguing about inconclusive graphs and data and use your intelligence to fix the problem. Let’s try to have some optimism that we can change things, and that it will get better.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
ThomasL: Both of your graphs leave off the last few decades of reconstructed information (proxy data is very difficult to use for recent times, by its nature). What are you trying to prove with them?
By the way, Mann isn’t the only climatologist in the world that constructed a temperature record and found an abnormally large recent warming. It was one of the firsts, so that’s why all the big guns are aimed at it. Just so you know.
No serious scientists backing global warming denies that temperatures have changed rapidly in the past. Actually, it was paleoclimatologists who discovered this fact. But the question is why is it changing today. Temperature doesn’t change for no reason. Nothing happens for no reason. You should know that. And to start off, take a look at the reconstructed atmospheric carbon concentration record. During the past million years, there is no evidence that carbon concentration rose much beyond 300ppm. As of this year, it sits at 380ppm, much higher than found anywhere in the history of modern ice ages. I think you’ll find it a hard argument to claim that the corresponding carbon concentration increase is “ordinary” as well.
Global mean temperature does not tell the entire story. Global mean temperature is a useful gauge of climate change, but at the end of the day, it is only one number. You must look elsewhere to learn more.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
BA,
From the NAS report:
Plausible? Hardly a ringing endorsement. If you read the full report, it actually endorses most of the criticisms of the Hockey stick graph.
You’ve suggested visiting RealClimate before – I check it daily. Will you visit Climate Audit ? I think a skeptic like you will appreciate what he has done there.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
That’s the problem with the skeptics. Always going about one thing when the rest of the world goes about their business producing reams and reams of scientific papers detailing all of the changes taking place in our climate…
November 28th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Pres. Bush, in a speech in 2001:
And at a press conference in 2005:
You can argue that the Bush White House is not doing enough, or is doing the wrong thing, but I don’t think you can argue that they are denying the reality of global warming.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Bob: “Plausible” in NAS-speak means something like “we aren’t rejecting it with vigor”. It’s a more conservative use of language than most of use use normally (in this topic thread, for example). The word doesn’t carry the same connotation as it does in everyday language, where it means more like “possible, but not likely”.
As for criticisms, Mann himself acknowledged most of them as legitimate. A science as difficult as this naturally has room for improvement, and researchers will of course make errors. If Mann was arguing against the NAS for their criticisms, I think you would have a more solid stance here.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Brant D:
I’m not sure what stance you think I was taking, I was just trying to point out that the NAS report did not, in fact, back Dr. Mann’s graph. However, you say:
So it only took 7 years, a couple of congressional hearings and a NAS panel convened in his honor to admit it. Bully for him.
Actually, in this response from RealClimate to the NAS panel report(which I assume he had a hand in writing), it’s hard to see where he admits to much of anything. Do you have another reference?
November 30th, 2006 at 10:50 am
What? I can’t speak for Mann. If you want to know more, why don’t you ask him yourself?
In the meantime, the most important message to carry away is that even though the NAS study nitpicks some of the details of the Mann study, they acknowledge that the “hockey stick” is real, real as in physical and historical, and is not merely an artifact from one potentially flawed reconstruction methodology. Like I said earlier, Mann is not the only person in the last decade who has attempted such a reconstruction, and he isn’t the only person who has found a significant recent break in the temperature record. The primary reason his work is the most cited of its kind is because it was one of the first, and the most well-known. That’s generally how citation works, for better or for worse. It isn’t limited to climate science.
January 30th, 2007 at 2:02 am
One remark: Even if global warming isn’t caused by Homo Sapiens, shouldn’t we try our very best not to make things worse? What’s wrong about showing them mineral-resource lobbyists the finger while embracing regenerative resources a tad more? After all, solar cells and wind power stations can create jobs everywhere, in one’s own country or foreign; it depends how quick governments support these new technologies. Here’s my finger…