The lull is ending–the storm beginning–over climate change in the U.S. Congress. And courtesy of Rick Piltz, I’ve come across an extraordinary letter in which a group of distinguished climate researchers address every elected Rep., and set out some principles that, if adhered to (we can always hope), would likely head off any problems.
There are many things that are impressive about the letter, including how eloquent and well-written it is. But I was most struck by its use of framing and other communication techniques to open minds that may have been dismissive. In particular, right out of the gate, the scientists emphasize the military and human health implications of climate change:
Our military recognizes that the consequences of climate change have direct security implications for the country that will only become more acute with time, and it has begun the sort of planning required across the board.
The health of Americans is also at risk. The U.S. Climate Impacts Report, commissioned by the George W. Bush administration, states: “Climate change poses unique challenges to human health. Unlike health threats caused by a particular toxin or disease pathogen, there are many ways that climate change can lead to potentially harmful health effects. There are direct health impacts from heat waves and severe storms, ailments caused or exacerbated by air pollution and airborne allergens, and many climate-sensitive infectious diseases.”
This puts us somewhere we don’t expect—not at all what Congress is used to hearing about global warming. And the surprises continue with an analogy relating our climate problem to the national debt:
Our carbon debt increases each year, just as our national debt increases each year that spending exceeds revenue. And our carbon debt is even longer-lasting; carbon dioxide molecules can last hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
And on it goes. I think it is fair to say that if Republicans in Congress as a group are ever going to listen to a climate change message, they are going to listen to one like this.
February 4th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
[...] look at climate science. In a twist on the usual scientists-can’t-communicate story line, Chris Mooney says the letter is an example of doing everything right and holds lessons for others: There are many [...]
February 4th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
What if your goal isn’t just to convince conservatives that climate change is a problem, but to convince them to become liberals on a full spectrum of issues – say by convincing them that government should act in the economic interest of society as a whole while protecting civil liberties instead of maximizing economic liberty while protecting the “moral fiber” of society?
Wouldn’t framing just allow conservatives to maintain their worldview without it shattering, so that they go back to their exclusively conservative news outlets and pundits and commenters and sooner or later the next Lord Monckton comes along with another fool-proof refutation of AGW that goes unchallenged so it must be true, and now they’re back where they started, so isn’t framing short-sighted?
Of course, these questions would be better suited to addressing a more general population than politicians whose job security depends on not acting in good faith. In the case of politicians, hitting them with sources that are unassailable is far more important than evidence and reason.
February 4th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Well, you would have thought that for such an important letter that somebody might have checked to make sure the science was correct, wouldn’t you? Far be it from me to complain about free gifts like this, though. I expect the Republicans will not only listen, but be keen to spread the word about it.
I have to say, though, I don’t understand what you mean about the framing. It looks much like the same old set of frames they’ve been failing with for the past few years.
They start off badly in the abstract, using the “deniers” insult (unlikely to persuade), uses the usual argument from authority on peer-review, and then baldly says “don’t listen to them, you must listen to us and believe everything we say”. That’s not going to impress, and it’s not going to go down well.
The first paragraph of the letter proper asserts the orthodoxy with no hint of any doubt. If you want to persuade somebody, you always start from a position they will agree with, and lead them to your target gradually. You don’t start by saying something that’s going to slam the barriers down. Incidentally we’ve been seeing the health/security angle for a while now, and it’s generally regarded as lame. We’re up to here on health scares and security scares.
The second paragraph asserts (without any support) that the science is strong, and then immediately pushes a list of obvious scare stories starting with rising sea levels. Except that we all know that the projection is for about a foot or maybe two over a period of a century – even if the AGW hypothesis is correct. In the unlikely event we’d even notice, we can easily adapt. Scare stories no longer work, and starting with one we know is not even scary is especially bad.
The next paragraph listing further health scares runs right into the well-known correlation between mortality and cold weather, which kills far more than hot weather. Again, an old argument that bears no scrutiny.
And then the next paragraph, after making a strained analogy with the fiscal deficit – the first sign of an actual useful framing in terms that Republicans could relate to – we come to some scientific misunderstandings that are not going to enhance the signatories’ scientific credibility. The Royal Society in the UK just got caught trying this one, too.
We have the assertion that “burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces far more carbon dioxide than is absorbed by oceans and forests”, which as stated, is not true. What they are referring to is the net emission/absorption by oceans and forests, which is smaller than anthropogenic emissions but not by such a large amount. If you check Wikipedia’s article on the Carbon cycle, you will see that the oceans emit 90 GtC annually and absorb 92 GtC, the forests emit 121.6 GtC and absorb 121.3 GtC, and mankind emits 5.5 GtC. These numbers are a little out of date, but not by much.
The total amount of carbon absorbed by oceans and forests is thus 213.3 GtC/yr, which is a slightly larger number than 5.5 GtC/yr.
Not content with this brilliant mathematical tour-de-force, they then go on to say “carbon dioxide molecules can last hundreds of years in the atmosphere” which if interpreted as I think it was meant to be, is not well descriptive of the true situation either. In fact, the half-life of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere (before getting cycled by the oceans) is about 5 years, which means that it takes about 35 years for over 99% of the CO2 molecules to be replaced. After a century, there is one molecule in a million left – which given the number of CO2 molecules is still a lot, but not what I expect people were imagining.
What they should have talked about was how long the excess in CO2 would last. Since as we say above the oceans and forests absorb a net 1.7 GtC compared to 5.5 GtC emitted, we find that the sinks can absorb about a third of the CO2 we emit. If we stopped emitting CO2 overnight, then CO2 would fall about half as fast as it rose. The excess would probably take a couple of centuries to be re-absorbed.
And all of this is assuming the numbers in Wikipedia are known exactly, before you get into all the technical sceptical arguments about how on Earth you measure the total emissions of CO2 from all the world’s oceans (which fluctuate with the local temperature) to an accuracy of better than 1%.
And assuming that you think persistently high CO2 is anything to worry about in the first place, of course. It is rather begging the question.
And so we go on. The next two sections are more “Trust me. I’m a scientist.” stuff, which by this time nobody is listening to. And the following section is another appeal to “don’t listen to those deniers” again, which is still not winning you any friends amongst a party that is now full of ‘deniers’.
In the final paragraph we get to the nub of the issue – “please don’t investigate us”, which I think was the real purpose of the whole letter. And finally, a most generous offer to let them help the Republicans draft their policies, which is sure to provoke more laughter.
As a letter designed to persuade Democrats, it’s probably pretty good. But considered as a means to persuade sceptic Republican Congresspeople, it’s a total disaster.
I’m sure you wouldn’t have been surprised at the Republicans not being persuaded, but perhaps you’ll still find it enlightening to get an insight into why.
In terms of framing, the “we’re right and you’re wrong” frame is now a failure, and cannot be recovered. You might have more success with a “OK, there’s been a problem, but after we clean our act up – like this, see? – the solid science left that you can see laid out here still makes the case.” Like I said, start with a position you know they’ll agree with, and then lead up to the position you want them to move towards gradually.
February 4th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Nullius: Well, you would have thought that for such an important letter that somebody might have checked to make sure the science was correct, wouldn’t you?
You mean the NAS panel George Bush convened in 2001 didn’t “check the science?”
That panel included Richard Lindzen by the way. I suppose you think the scientists should have grabbed the Oregon Petition and phone banked to talk to everyone on there before writing the letter.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
#4,
“You mean the NAS panel George Bush convened in 2001 didn’t “check the science?””
Yes.
“That panel included Richard Lindzen by the way.”
So?
“I suppose you think the scientists should have grabbed the Oregon Petition and phone banked to talk to everyone on there”
What is this thing you have with lists of ‘experts’? You should know my arguments well enough by now to know that I don’t subscribe to argument from authority ad populam.
Try addressing the scientific content of one of my comments, for a change. Is it your position that 213.3 GtC/yr is far smaller than 5.5 GtC/yr, or would you like to take the brave step of conceding a point, and joining your voice to calls for something a bit better from our climate scientists? Not to make me happy, but out of principle, because it’s the truth?
It is thus that we can distinguish a scientific sceptic from a political partisan.
February 4th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
sigh.
It’s a nice letter. Really, it is.
Members of Congress generally don’t read letters. Even letters with these signatories. They definitely don’t read form letters sent to every Member of Congress. They just don’t. I know, I worked for one.
Staff may or may not read this letter. Relevant committee staff probably will. Congressman Markey might.
There is, of course, strategic value in preempting the debate to some degree – I’ve said as much own my own blog. And there is an important point to be made about how wrong it is to just make shit up or attack scientists when the science doesn’t align properly with your goals of profit margins above 15%.
But let’s not think for a second that a well-framed letter that uses the words “national security” or “public health” is somehow going to prevent the GOP from doing its thing.
If this letter were a small part of a coordinated and comprehensive communications strategy that also addressed the REAL reason why conservatives (and the businesses that back it) are attacking the science, I’d be very pleased. But we all know it’s not.
So yeah, it’s good that they sent a letter. And it’s a well-written letter, if a bit long. But let’s be realistic where we stand. The President couldn’t even utter the words “climate change” in the SOTU. The GOP smells blood in the water and they’re going on the attack – because there’s no strategy in place to stop them.
February 5th, 2011 at 9:23 am
about a foot or maybe two over a period of a century – even if the AGW hypothesis is correct. In the unlikely event we’d even notice, we can easily adapt.
Whistling past the graveyard.
The next paragraph listing further health scares runs right into the well-known correlation between mortality and cold weather, which kills far more than hot weather
Rapid climate shifts–regardless of the direction–would kill, displace, and cost more than any set amount of damage done by either variable of “coldness” or “warmness.”
In terms of framing, the “we’re right and you’re wrong” frame is now a failure, and cannot be recovered.
Pearls before swine.
When your audience–conservative Republican eco-denialists–is a bunch of conspiracy kooks who believe that all evidence of long-term climate trends must a priori be false because Earth is only 6,000 years old and scientists have been lying about that all along too, it is impossible to convince them of anything based on any amount of scientific process-based evidentiary proof.
February 5th, 2011 at 9:48 am
David
Sadly you’re right of course but I still want to encourage engagement endeavors like this one
February 5th, 2011 at 10:13 am
So instead of promoting what is likely to be an ineffective letter writing campaign or searching for that magic frame that brings the opposition, chastened and slobbering, to its knees, why not encourage and cultivate (advertise, blog about, interview, worship), any conservative republican that supports clean energy legislation, especially if they are on the science committee?
February 5th, 2011 at 10:45 am
@3
Um, you’ve three paragraphs complaining that this phrase in the letter
produces far more carbon dioxide than is absorbed by oceans and forests.
wasn’t written as
produces far more carbon dioxide than the net amount absorbed by oceans and forests.
and this makes the science incorrect? Yeesh, talk about comments from the peanut gallery.
Of COURSE they’re talking about the net amounts! Thats the only thing that makes sense in flux balance equations.
The total amount of carbon absorbed by oceans and forests is thus 213.3 GtC/yr, which is a slightly larger number than 5.5 GtC/yr.
So what? Who cares? If 213.3 Gt/yr were actually disappearing from the air, the 3000 Gt total atmospheric content would be gone in little over a decade or two. If plants breath in the carbon and then breath most of it out again inside of a day, its not doing anything important in the long term. Its hard to see any relevance at all to the intake number 213.3 Gt/yr except in the immediate context of 211.6 gt/year simultaneously emitted. No relevance to the totals or their secular variations in atmosphere, oceans, ground, plants or any other source or sink.
February 5th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
#7,
“Whistling past the graveyard.”
I find that graveyards are usually very peaceful places. There’s no need for people to be scared of them.
“Rapid climate shifts–regardless of the direction–would kill, displace, and cost more than any set amount of damage done by either variable of “coldness” or “warmness.””
But fortunately nobody is predicting “rapid climate shifts” of a magnitude greater than the usual summer-winter variation that I referred to.
“When your audience…”
Thank you! The “we’re right and you’re a bunch of conspiracy kooks” frame is alive and well! I can’t think of anything more likely to convince the Republicans. In fact, it’s clearly a bit of a mystery why your tactic hasn’t already worked.
#10,
Absorption, emission, and absorption minus emission are three distinct quantities, which it makes perfect sense to talk about in flux balance calculations – as I’ve just done.
Here’s another one for you: greenhouse gases absorb virtually none of the energy radiated from the Earth’s surface. Scientifically correct? But by “absorb” I ‘obviously’ meant the net of absorption and emission, which pretty much balance out.
That it takes only one small word to correct it does not make it correct.
“Who cares” about accuracy? The reason is that this claim is being made to support an argument about causation, and you have very different considerations when your proposed causal factor is much larger than all the others, compared to when it is of comparable size or smaller. In the latter case, you can pick any arbitrary factor that has increased by a little bit more than the net balance, group all the rest, and say exactly the same.
If all of the other potential contributors are far smaller, then the causal argument being implied here stands on the information already provided. Only the biggest factor could have caused the effect. Otherwise, you would need to provide a lot more evidence to carry the argument.
But congrats on addressing the content of the argument. That was a decent answer.
February 5th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
@11
Here’s another one for you: greenhouse gases absorb virtually none of the energy radiated from the Earth’s surface. Scientifically correct? But by “absorb” I ‘obviously’ meant the net of absorption and emission, which pretty much balance out.
Fallacy of Equivocation there: Absorb has different meanings in different fields. The above is true for radiative transfer, but for biology, not so much. You don’t absorb all the oxygen that you breath in, nor all the nutrients that you eat.
It is fair to compare one term, such as fossil fuel carbon injection – which is only a source and not a sink of carbon – to the sum of all the other terms, to understand what the relative effect is. One could similarly examine the contribution(s) of one component (i.e. trees, or a tree) if one examines the net source+sink for that component vs the remainder. That’s inquiring about the net effect from the component. Either the component is there and both source and sink are present in the equation, or the component is not there, and both source and sink terms vanish. You either have both, or neither. In the case of fossil fuels, there’s a source term only. Diesel generators and automobiles are only emitting carbon, not taking it in.
In contrast, pulling out the uptake (sink) terms only from a flux balance equation and comparing them to one source term only and ignoring the remaining terms is cherry picking. Thats what I meant by “who cares?” – its a meaningless comparison. Its unphysical.
February 5th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
@12
The above is true for radiative transfer, but for biology, not so much.
gaaah sorry I need to proofread better -I should have said that absorption doesn’t necessarily imply “net absorption” in radiative transfer, but it can and often does in biology.
February 5th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
#12, 13,
“The above is true for radiative transfer, but for biology, not so much.”
I’m not aware of any such difference. I doubt Congress will be, either.
“I should have said that absorption doesn’t necessarily imply “net absorption” in radiative transfer, but it can and often does in biology.”
So how does that make them different?
“You don’t absorb all the oxygen that you breath in, nor all the nutrients that you eat.”
I don’t follow that. Are you saying that I sometimes emit oxygen like a plant?
“such as fossil fuel carbon injection – which is only a source and not a sink of carbon”
Some of the difference between absorption and emission by forests and vegetation is the slow build-up of new fossil fuel reserves. And a significant part of anthropogenic emissions is due to cement production, which slowly re-absorbs part of the CO2 via the process of ‘curing’. For that matter, the IPCC classifies part of the absorption by oceans and forests as “anthropogenic”, since it is in response to the increase in CO2 level, land use changes with agriculture and deforestation, etc.
There is a difficulty in applying causal arguments on the basis of such sums. Suppose I have six possible factors contributing A = +1, B = +3, C = +2, D = -1 E = -2, F = -2. We can see from A+B+C+D+E+F = +1 that there is a net positive, but which of these factors caused it? Well, the answer is C, obviously, because it emits twice as much (+2) as the rest can absorb (A+B+D+E+F = -1). Right?
If one of the contributors is far larger than all the rest (+40, +3, +2, …) then it is inevitable that it will dominate the effect, and a causal relationship is demonstrated by pointing it out. This is the implication many people will take away from the argument.
Absorption isn’t the same thing as absorption minus emission, like income isn’t the same thing as income minus expenditure. (Try telling it to the IRS.) At best, it is ambiguous, and you have to bear in mind that it is not written for an audience inclined to be charitable.
February 5th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Long weekend, lots of work as it warmed to the low 70′s today. I did not have to burn much gas to keep the house warm.
Maybe we all need to have a little energy literacy. If scientific illiteracy might be our undoing, then DOE just might be helping out with it’s new energy literacy program.
February 6th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Well, I’m glad you asked what conservative republican on the science committee could be an ally in passing clean energy legislation (not that I’m a conservative or a republican). That would be Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md), first elected to congress at the age of 66 and currently 84 years old.
I don’t know for sure, but wouldn’t it help to lend support and publicity to Rep. Bartlett? Might not a conservative sitting on the science committee have at least as much power to persuade than a letter read by staffers?
Like I’ve said before, Roscoe’s not getting any younger. Maybe it couldn’t hurt to sing some praises and show support now and again. Like Roscoe has said, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not an idiot.” Gotta love that.
Then again, maybe the train has left the station altogether, and we’re all just howling at the moon. So what does it matter what anyone does, says, or writes.
February 6th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
@14
I’m not aware of any such difference. I doubt Congress will be, either.
I would hope that they understand the concept of net effects, though.
There is a difficulty in applying causal arguments on the basis of such sums. Suppose I have six possible factors contributing A = +1, B = +3, C = +2, D = -1 E = -2, F = -2. We can see from A+B+C+D+E+F = +1 that there is a net positive, but which of these factors caused it? Well, the answer is C, obviously, because it emits twice as much (+2) as the rest can absorb (A+B+D+E+F = -1). Right?
We have much more information than a simple sum, we have a time series of the sum, and also for at least some of the terms, giving us some of the rates and a history. In your example above A+(B+C+D+E+F) = 1 where A is 1 and (B+C+D+E+F) is zero, these are all functions of time (A(t), B(t), etc.). If A is something that we measured as increasing over a time interval and we also measure the sum increasing at the same rate over the same time interval, and we either know or can reasonably expect the net sum of the rest of the terms to change not so much, then A is a clear suspect of being causal.
Furthermore, the actual flux balance contains physical constraints, greatly reducing the number of degrees of freedom. As I said above, some components must be taken in pairs. For example if C is the uptake by trees and D is the emission, then both scale with the number of trees N, C+D = N(c+d) where c and d are the corresponding mean rates per tree. N is function of time, N(t), and its rate of change can be estimated by satellite imaging and checked by ground surveys. c & d can be measured or estimated by controlled experiments. One can therefore differentiate between rate of change increase due to changes in A vs changes in C+D. Similarly, things like oceanic uptake and release will be constrained by physical parameters such as temperature. And things like time-series measurements of CO2 content in the oceans and soil places additional constraints.
The case for A(t) being the dominant cause of the change in S(t) = A(t) + R(t) (where R(t) = B(t) + C(t) +… + F(t)) is made by R(t) being smaller than A(t) and S(t) having the same time profile of A(t). Furthermore, if S(t) = A(t) for some range of t, then I can assert that R(t) = 0 for that same range of t. And if |S(t)-A(t)| < e over that range, where e is a small number, then I can also assert that |R(t)| < e over that same range. A(t) dominates.
February 6th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
#17,
I agree that there is more information, and I expect that with significantly more work a case could be made. But my point was, this extra information wasn’t even alluded to in the letter, and the impression was given that the argument was complete in itself. The reader – if they were not already aware of the issue – would not know what additional questions they had to ask to get the rest of the story, and justify having confidence in the claim. It leaves anyone who relies on such a claim vulnerable to the first sceptic to come along and point out they have been misled: a powerfully persuasive technique.
That’s why it is vitally important that people are aware of the limits of the knowledge you give them. Even if you don’t explain all the technical issues that could cause an argument to fail, they need to be aware that there are issues.
This is one of the big reasons why scepticism has spread – not because of oil funding, or political ideology, or wishful thinking – but because simplified and exaggerated narratives have been sold backed by the authority of settled science. That’s powerfully persuasive in the absence of any opposition, but is terribly vulnerable otherwise. As Chris said above: with a majority of openly sceptical Republicans in Congress for the first time, the storm is only just beginning.
Regarding your modelling, it’s not safe to assume that both absorption and emission scale precisely with the number of trees. It depends on the type of forest – managed forests being grown for paper or timber production will have a different behaviour (in the short term, at least) to virgin rainforest. Slash-and-burn will have a different effect to the usual continuous cycle of slow growth and deadwood decay. Uptake of CO2 is affected by moisture and temperature. And not all tree species react the same way. If any of these change in frequency, or the mix of forest types changes, the relationship could change too.
It’s not bad for a first-order estimate, but the rule is that everything in climate is always more complicated than you think – even after you have taken the rule into account.
Nevertheless, you do make one point very well – determining causality requires an accurate and detailed model of the natural carbon cycle. It’s not a trivial point.
February 7th, 2011 at 1:47 am
@18
But my point was, this extra information wasn’t even alluded to in the letter, and the impression was given that the argument was complete in itself.
How long would that letter have to be? We’ve been back and forth on this for 7 or 8 pages now. It would take a textbook to develop the case for a non-specialist if they want to challenge every step in the development of the argument. How much time do you expect a congressperson or their staffers to devote to this one communication, out of all the many that they have to deal with?
It’s not safe to assume that both absorption and emission scale precisely with the number of trees. It depends on the type of forest – managed forests being grown for paper or timber production will have a different behaviour (in the short term, at least) to virgin rainforest. Slash-and-burn will have a different effect to the usual continuous cycle of slow growth and deadwood decay. Uptake of CO2 is affected by moisture and temperature. And not all tree species react the same way. If any of these change in frequency, or the mix of forest types changes, the relationship could change too.
All very true – a more refined treatment might separate out terms by species, region, and include environmental variables (although one would still have separate Ns for each group). However …
Nevertheless, you do make one point very well – determining causality requires an accurate and detailed model of the natural carbon cycle. It’s not a trivial point.
…clearly I haven’t made my point very well, which is that if, in S(t) = A(t) + R(t), if S and A are measured, R can be deduced without the need for detailed modeling. Conservation principles – in this case conservation of carbon atoms – are incredibly powerful rules that absolutely describe reality. That equal sign is far more binding in of nature than any legal construction mankind has ever devised for itself. If A(t) is found to be larger than R(t) for all measured t, changes in A are the dominant cause for changes in S over that same range, regardless of any of the details of the terms that make up R, no matter what complexities might lie in the makeup of R, be they known or unknown.
The quantities S(t) and A(t) HAVE been measured since before the 60s, so R(t) can be computed for the same interval. Oak Ridge conveniently provides Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 concentration history (S(t)) as well as a Fossil Fuel Emission history (A(t)). Even without smoothing or any fancy manipulation before differentiating the Mauna Loa concentrations (assuming 2.193e9 metric tons/ppmv), A(t) is roughly twice S(t) so R(t) is roughly half of A(t) but of the opposite sign. Therefore the NET effect of ALL other sources and sinks together are a net SINK of roughly half the magnitude of fossil carbon injection. Even if you hypothetically tell me that one of the natural sources of CO2 is an order of magnitude higher than was previously thought, I can safely assert that another sink term or terms are more than compensating for it, without even having to know what they are. Such is the power of conservation principles.
The crux of the argument that the observed buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic thus hinges on two measurements – the rate of increase of CO2, and the amount of CO2 injected by burning fossil fuels. No other details of the carbon cycle are needed to make the case.
February 7th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
#18,
“How long would that letter have to be?”
Achieving accuracy with brevity is an art form, which is why science communication is hard. But in this case, it could have been corrected very easily – it’s only taken us so long because I needed to explain why the existing version was problematic.
“It would take a textbook to develop the case for a non-specialist if they want to challenge every step in the development of the argument. How much time do you expect a congressperson or their staffers to devote to this one communication, out of all the many that they have to deal with?”
What makes you think a Republican congressperson will spend any time on it, and what effect would you like it to have if they did? For a politician to spend time on it, it needs to offer them something they want or need. But this letter doesn’t persuade, it doesn’t educate, it doesn’t negotiate or compromise, it doesn’t motivate a more sympathetic treatment, it doesn’t budge an inch from the existing, already well-known position.
As you say, it would take a textbook to develop the argument fully, and you don’t have space here. But the answer to that problem is not therefore to make a simplified assertion that fails to mention the need for a textbook, in a manner calculated to give the impression that it’s all simple and trivially obvious. You make it clear that it does need a textbook, and the textbook is openly and freely available if they (or anyone else) want to see it.
Would you like to know how scientists could write a letter to make Republicans sit up and take notice? You start by conceding that there has been a problem with the communication of the case for CAGW and the handling of criticisms. You announce a new and major effort to clean up the exposition – excluding any parts that have turned out to be dubious and fully expressing any uncertainty or reasons to doubt, enforcing the highest standards of data/algorithm openness and integrity on all evidence accepted, distilling out the bare essentials of the chain of logic, with links to the complications, and offer to make use of the most talented of the sceptics to test and challenge the science, to find and fill in any gaps in the explanation.
(To quote that most relevant essay: “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.”)
Whether or not you think those problems are your fault, or the criticisms justified, or the science ultimately still solid – if you want to make an impression on the Republicans, you have to change your approach. You have to respond to the perception of serious problems with climate science. It’s no use changing the frame from climate disaster to health/security disaster. You have to change it from “we’re scientists and you’re a bunch of conspiracy kooks so you must take our word for it” to “we’re responding to your concerns, and here are the details and checks you asked for.” Otherwise they’ll just laugh.
“Conservation principles – in this case conservation of carbon atoms – are incredibly powerful rules that absolutely describe reality.”
In my A-to-F argument, I already assumed conservation to that extent. It’s fine if you’ve only got one unknown and a closed system, but otherwise it only gives one equation to constrain many variables. But you’re right to point it out, since as it turns out it doesn’t apply to Carbon-14.
“The crux of the argument that the observed buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic thus hinges on two measurements – the rate of increase of CO2, and the amount of CO2 injected by burning fossil fuels. No other details of the carbon cycle are needed to make the case.”
Monitoring the changing quantities doesn’t tell you anything at all about the causal relationships. Consider my ABC… example from earlier. Suppose that B involves a feedback so that it is always equal to 5 – C. When C increases more, B increases less to compensate. But A can still vary independently. Now we can still say that C has contributed an increase of twice the net sink formed by all the others, but it’s clear now that C cannot be the cause of the increase.
If the natural carbon sinks were such that they could – other things being held equal – absorb all the carbon that we emit very quickly, but that some other biological effect in the deep oceans had independently adjusted the equilibrium level upwards, you would still see a rise with a magnitude of half the amount we contribute, but the causal relationship between the two would be entirely absent. This is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the gap in the logic – I’m not saying that I take it as a serious possibility.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Monitoring the changing quantities doesn’t tell you anything at all about the causal relationships.
If that’s your perspective even when it comes to mathematical equations, you have set yourself up to be immobile in the face of all future evidence and it will never be possible to get you to accept a causal relationship even when it has been proven (as this one really has).
Why do you do this, Nullius? You’ve come out and acknowledged in several threads here (including this one) that humans releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere will have an overall warming trend–of some degree. That leaves the door wide open to fairly debating political and economic responses, if any. But instead of that, time and time again after admitting your belief in this scientific basis, you then…. try to re-debate the scientific basis! I don’t like to speculate on the motives of Internet people, but I will say that your approach to discussions of scientific truths is extraordinarily intellectually counterproductive, to the point of rendering moot the entire process of drawing evidence-based conclusions. Some of the time you seem to have been debating yourself as much as or even more than the others in these threads. It totally voids any credibility in your suggestions of outreach to congressional Republicans: we’d have to spend the first year just getting everybody to agree that the sheets of paper were 8.5 x 11″, and in the second year we’d have to include reasonable doubt on the notion so as not to appear too radically partisan.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
But instead of that, time and time again after admitting your belief in this scientific basis, you then…. try to re-debate the scientific basis!
Interesting, huh?
When it’s politics always on your mind, to the exclusion of science, you have no problem moving the goalposts every play…
It becomes obvious when someone is trying to protect their politics from science, as opposed to the other way around.
February 7th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
#21,
Why do I do this? Because I think it matters that we not only get the right answer, but that we get it for the right reason. If somebody says that in the fraction 26/65 you can cancel the 6′s top and bottom to get 2/5, I will object that doing so isn’t mathematically valid. I don’t care that you got the right answer, it’s still wrong. And I will say that any process where such steps have been routinely passed over undetected, or excused and retained after being pointed out, is not one that justifies confidence in whatever else it says.
Science is all about proving causal relationships and drawing evidence-based conclusions, and it is very definitely possible to do so. But the logic required to do so is extraordinarily delicate. You can’t take short-cuts with it.
I believe the primary problem with climate science’s reputation today is that in presentations to the public and politicians (and to some degree privately) it has been taking short-cuts, and it has been caught doing it. (I don’t say always intentionally, or with bad motives.) It doesn’t matter if you’re right if you can’t prove it. So until the methods are fixed, the conclusions will remain moot.
February 7th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
If somebody says that in the fraction 26/65 you can cancel the 6′s top and bottom to get 2/5, I will object that doing so isn’t mathematically valid. I don’t care that you got the right answer, it’s still wrong.
Now THAT, I believe, is a straw man. I’ve made no math errors that I can see.
Suppose that B involves a feedback so that it is always equal to 5 – C. When C increases more, B increases less to compensate. But A can still vary independently. Now we can still say that C has contributed an increase of twice the net sink formed by all the others, but it’s clear now that C cannot be the cause of the increase.
Yet because R(t) = S(t) -A(t) is roughly R(t) ~= -1/2 A(t) where A & S are positive, and R being the sum of your B through F, I know that even if C is increasing dramatically with a not-quite-compensating B, the sum B+D+E+F IS compensating and more. So anything C is doing is having no effect.
The constraint from the two measurement histories leaves you very little wiggle room. The simplest explanation, which is what I’m arguing, is that the atmospheric increase is primarily due to the fossil fuel injection term A(t) and the environment is assimilating more and more but not keeping up. If you want to claim that there is another term which is bigger, then the constraint says that something else, perhaps multiple things, are overcompensating for it in such a way as to reduce it by half again as much as A(t) AND also so as have roughly the same time profile as 1/2 that of fossil fuels but negative. Now, if that is some kind of feedback due to A(t), then we’re back to A being the cause. If the other increasing term is independent of A but always has a stronger negative feedback coupled to IT, then it is something that never will have an effect, ever. That leaves some sort of environmental increase which is compensated by something else which is not a feedback but which somehow gives the ~ -1/2 A(t) profile. If they are not directly coupled to A(t) or each other, then how do they come by the same time profile? This explanation requires a number of coincidences and is more complex than the simple explanation. The burden of proof thus shifts to you to either propose a plausible alternative mechanism or provide supporting evidence for it. Otherwise the simple explanation wins by Occam’s Razor.
If thats not enough, I propose an experiment to further establish cause and effect: Lets set the fossil fuel injection term to zero for, oh say, 10 or 20 years or so, then turn it back on, and monitor what happens to the atmospheric CO2 content.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
I thought we were talking about why the letter is or is not going to work with its intended audience…
when did we start arguing theory instead of the rather obvious use of such theoretical snippets of theory above presented as obvious examples rather than being the actual argument?
February 8th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
#24,
“Now THAT, I believe, is a straw man. I’ve made no math errors that I can see.”
You know, I almost added a paragraph to explain that it wasn’t meant that way, but then decided not to because I thought it was obvious, and it would be insulting to suggest you wouldn’t realise it. I apologise.
It’s simply an example to illustrate the concept “it matters that we not only get the right answer, but that we get it for the right reason.” No more. I made it a simple error just to make the point more obvious. No direct parallel is implied with your argument – which is in fact pretty good by the usual standards around here. I’ve enjoyed discussing it with you. It’s certainly much better than the usual ad hom/authority stuff.
“The constraint from the two measurement histories leaves you very little wiggle room.”
It doesn’t matter if it leaves me no wiggle room at all. I have a sum A+B+C+D+E+F=T. Suppose I monitor all 7. I can deduce any one of them from the other six. So A = T – (B+C+D+E+F), B = T – (A+C+D+E+F), and so on. Each of them can be considered as a set of 3 terms like your A, R, and S, which have to balance. I can pick any factor, and the argument looks exactly the same. If any one of them should vary, either T or the sum of of the other factors must vary to compensate. The choice of which factor to single out is completely arbitrary – we conclude that fossil fuels are the simplest explanation for the rise only because fossil fuels was the factor we happened to single out, and we hid the details of all the rest.
“If they are not directly coupled to A(t) or each other, then how do they come by the same time profile?”
They don’t have the same time profile – instead of the rise being equal to the anthropogenic contribution, the rise is only half of it. There has to be something else varying. We know there must be some such mechanism – each contributor has to have its own controlling mechanism, its own range of variation – so we don’t have to upset Occam by inventing them. We don’t know what they are, or if/how they are inter-related, but we already know they exist.
“The burden of proof thus shifts to you”
It depends what you think I’m trying to prove. If you think I’m trying to prove that something else is causing the rise in CO2, then you’d be right. That’s precisely why I’ve been very careful to say that I’m not trying to do that. We would need independent reasons for thinking that something else was causing it, plausible mechanisms and so on, which I’m not proposing to offer.
What I was trying to do was to consider whether the chain of logic was sound – whether the conclusion followed from the premises. To do that, I offered a hypothetical scenario in which the premises were satisfied but the conclusion was false, to show that the conclusion does not follow logically. I’m not asserting that this hypothetical situation is true, or even that it’s a serious possibility. I’m saying that because it’s possible, the logic as it stands does not follow – at the least, you have to add evidence to show that this potential situation has been eliminated.
#25,
Sorry, we’ve got a bit distracted. I think we’ve already asked and answered the question of whether the letter is going to work, and there isn’t a lot else to say. Arguing around the technicalities of the trivia this way is just for entertainment.
February 9th, 2011 at 7:52 am
[...] other day I praised the well written and well framed letter to Congress by a group of top climate scientists. Well, now [...]
February 9th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
I actually enjoy the maths Nullius
,
I also think your reasoning as to why the letter is never going to work with its target is very valid…