Climate and Post-Modern Science
I have written before of my believe that climate has become the first post-modern science. This time, I will yield the floor to Garth Paltridge to make the same point:
But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called postmodern science. This is a counterpart of the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast, whose results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.
There is little doubt that some players in the climate game – not a lot, but enough to have severely damaged the reputation of climate scientists in general – have stepped across the boundary into postmodern science. The Climategate scandal of 2009, wherein thousands of emails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, showed that certain senior members of the research community were, and presumably still are, quite capable of deliberately selecting data in order to overstate the evidence for dangerous climate change. The emails showed as well that these senior members were quite happy to discuss ways and means of controlling the research journals so as to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox dogma. The ways and means included the sacking of recalcitrant editors.
Whatever the reason, it is indeed vastly more difficult to publish results in climate research journals if they run against the tide of politically correct opinion. Which is why most of the sceptic literature on the subject has been forced onto the web, and particularly onto web-logs devoted to the sceptic view of things. Which, in turn, is why the more fanatical of the believers in anthropogenic global warming insist that only peer-reviewed literature should be accepted as an indication of the real state of affairs. They argue that the sceptic web-logs should never be taken seriously by “real” scientists, and certainly should never be quoted. Which is a great pity. Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind. These three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review.
Update: The IPCC does not seem to be on a path to building the credibility of climate science. In their last report, the IPCC was rightly criticized for using "grey" literature as a source for their findings, against their own rules. Grey literature encompasses about anything that is not published peer-reviewed literature, including, from the last report, sources that were essentially press releases from advocacy groups like the IPCC. They even use a travel brochure as a source.
This time, to avoid this criticism, the IPCC is ... changing their rules to allow such grey literature citations. I am pretty sure that this was NOT passed in order to get more material from Steve McIntyre's blog. In related news, the IPCC also changed the makeup of its scientific panel, putting geographical and gender diversity over scientific qualifications as a criteria. The quota for African climate scientists will, for example, be higher than that of North America. See the whole story here.
Though this was all presented with pious words, my guess is that it was felt by the political leaders of the IPCC in the UN that the last report was not socialist or totalitarian enough and that more of such content was necessary. We'll see.
Steve D: But there is no indication from your data that this phenomenon is in anyway abnormal or accelerating.
Didn't say it was accelerating, but being pushed.
If the greenhouse effect is increasing, and as the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric composition, then we can study the atmosphere to determine what has changed. Furthermore, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that water vapor will tend to increase as the temperatures over the land increases. There are many other possible feedbacks, but we cited a number of studies that use different methodologies to determine climate sensitivity.
Steve D: Even if aerosols are masking the effect of stratospheric cooling, that makes it impossible for us to determine the level of the effect without out making certain unverified assumptions about the aerosol effect, which once again leads us back to the area of speculation.
There is substantial evidence of the effects of aerosols, and satellites now provide a much more precise understanding of sunlight scattering.
Steve D: I keep going back to the 2-5 degrees range you continue to tout. Because that’s already huge as stated, and I suspect actually much narrower than it really would be, if you seriously considered every variable.
Possibly, but suspicion is not evidence. Multiple investigations, using differing methodologies have narrowed the range of uncertainty. There are virtually no climatologists who now believe climate sensitivity is negligible, and among skeptics, they never publish any research that substantially undermines the prevailing paradigm. If you look at the journals, you would discover that the controversy is political and social, not scientific.
‘Didn’t say it was accelerating, but being pushed.’
Fair enough. But there could be a substantial lag to the effect as well.
'There is substantial evidence of the effects of aerosols'
What they might do, not what they actually do in situ, or to what degree. There is a circular argument here. I'm sure you can see it.
‘Multiple investigations, using differing methodologies have narrowed the range of uncertainty.'
All of which are observational, not experimental and subject to the same problems that I mentioned earlier; as are the atmospheric effects of aerosols. Research which undermines the prevailing paradigm would have the same issues as research which supports it. Considering all this, as well as the the difficulties in publishing negative or neutral research, it’s hardly surprising there are no papers substantially undermining the AGW paradigm. That would be the case for any internally consistent theory.
Even if your theory of AGW is completely correct (i.e. So much CO2 gives so much AGW) you are still assuming the partial pressure of CO2 will continue to rise. There are many reasons this might not be so. For example as CO2 rises the balance of organic matter shifts back to plants more CO2 will be fixed, countering increase.
Anyway, like I said, it should become very obvious in a very short time. If AGW is substantially correct, the recent surface temperature stability should vanish within the next decade.
Steve D: But there could be a substantial lag to the effect as well.
Yes, primarily due to thermal inertia in the oceans.
Steve D: What they might do, not what they actually do in situ, or to what degree.
Not only do scientists have direct measurements of scattering, they have many historical examples to study, such as volcanic eruptions.
Steve D: All of which are observational, not experimental and subject to the same problems that I mentioned earlier;
Yes. Turns out that all sciences, including experimental sciences, have the problem of teasing knowledge out of less than perfect observations.
Steve D: For example as CO2 rises the balance of organic matter shifts back to plants more CO2 will be fixed, countering increase.
Yes, scientists do happen to be aware of various carbon sinks. The primary carbon sink, accounting for about 25%, is the ocean, which is acidifying as a result.
Steve D: If AGW is substantially correct, the recent surface temperature stability should vanish within the next decade.
Or a supervolcano or giant asteroid impact or some other deus ex machina may 'solve' the problem.
Steve D,
I go away for three days, and come back to find you two are still at it!
Some advice: scienific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] can and do change their minds if given solid, verifiable evidence. For example, I was a true blue believer in AGW in the mid-90's — until I started looking at their claims, which avoided testable facts and the Scientific Method like Dracula avoids the dawn.
You write: "Even if your theory of AGW is completely correct (i.e. So much CO2 gives so much AGW)..."
First, AGW is not a 'theory'. Far from it. A theory is actually a hypothesis, which must have at least one non-trivial validating datum. Some examples are the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the Big Bang theory of cosmology. AGW is not even a hypothesis, because it is incapable of making consistent, accurate predictions.
AGW has no validating datum, thus it is a conjecture. As we see from the flat to declining global temperatures over the past decade and a half, AGW has completely failed to make accurate predictions. The real world is falsifying all predictions that CO2 will cause runaway global warming. In fact, the opposite appears to be happening. As CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures have stopped rising, and have started to decline:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/HadCrut3Global.jpg
Finally, you say: "If AGW is substantially correct, the recent surface temperature stability should vanish within the next decade."
Planet Earth is not in agreement with the AGW conjecture. Global temperatures could turn around and begin rising rapidly, in which case I would reassess the situation. If that happened I would start to be convinced that CO2=CAGW [or even CO2=AGW] has some basis in reality. So far, it does not. There is no testable evidence, per the Scientific Method, validating AGW. And since all empirical evidence supports the falsification of the CAGW and AGW conjectures, honest scientists must accept what is, and not what might be.
So far, the "carbon" scare is being completely debunked by the real world. Thus, skeptics of CO2=AGW are on the right side of the scientific debate. The alarmist crowd has failed to make their case, and the honest ones among them must now start to think what is, to them, almost unthinkable: CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures. The temporary rise in both may well be entirely coincidental — and every day that passes reinforces that likelihood.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: A theory is actually a hypothesis, which must have at least one non-trivial validating datum.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: As we see from the flat to declining global temperatures over the past decade and a half, AGW has completely failed to make accurate predictions.
Global mean temperatures have continued to rise.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas".
It is a large leap from that to AGW, which remains a conjecture.
Regarding the artifact that you linked to in your arbitrary zero baseline chart, see my numerous trend charts above, which show conclusively that rising global temperatures since the LIA remain well within their long term parameters. No acceleration of temperatures is taking place. Your GISS chart is a fine example of short term cherry-picking, nothing more. Long term parameters have not been exceeded.
The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore all alternative hypotheses and conjectures can be disregarded. The only hypothesis I have taken a definitive position on is this:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
Falsify that, if you think you can. If so, you will be the first, and on the short list for the Nobel prize. But so far, that easily testable hypothesis has withstood all attempts at falsification. The fact is that CO2 is good. More is better. Deal with it.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: It is a large leap from that to AGW, which remains a conjecture.
First things first. So we have a datum, contrary to your previous statement. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a calculable increase in the greenhouse effect, about 1°C for a doubling of CO2.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Regarding the artifact that you linked to in your arbitrary zero baseline chart, see my numerous trend charts above, which show conclusively that rising global temperatures since the LIA remain well within their long term parameters.
Second things second. So you agree temperatures have increased, contrary to your previous statement.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Third things third. Current scientific projections are for a 2-5°C increase in surface temperatures for a doubling of CO2.
Mr Z,
Your datum is an apple to my orange. AGW is the conjecture, not radiative physics. You are conflating your data. Just because CO2 is excited by IR does not mean that the planet is warming due to AGW. I have shown conclusively that any warming from CO2 is so minuscule that it cannot be measured, and thus it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
Further, a 1ºC rise in temperature would be entirely beneficial. Millions of arable acres would be opened up to agriculture in places like Mongolia, Siberia, Canada and Alaska. Global humidity would rise, providing rain for crops, which grow faster with more CO2. It's all good! Unfortunately, it isn't happening, and it is extremely unlikely that there is sufficient fossil fuel reserves to provide enough harmless, beneficial CO2 to double the atmospheric concentration. That is too bad, because doubling CO2 would be highly beneficial to the biosphere.
A hypothesis must also be able to make consistent, testable, accurate predictions. AGW cannot. Thus, AGW is not a hypothesis, but only a conjecture; an opinion.
Water is also a GHG, and putatively much more potent than CO2 due to its immense volume. But, sad to say, H2O also is failing to cause any unusual heating of the atmosphere. I am sure models will be fabricated to explain that unexpected development.
AGW may be true. But until there is testable evidence supporting it, it remains only a conjecture, the lowest rung on the scientific ladder.
Regarding your preposterous statement, "So you agree temperatures have increased...", please show me where I have ever said that temperatures have not increased since the LIA, which is what I have been discussing. I don't know where you've been.
Of course temperatures are rising. Naturally. They have been rising, in fits and starts, since the LIA – one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. Temperatures started rising when CO2 was only ≈280 ppmv, and they continue to rise within their long term parameters. Temperatures are not accelerating, thus the ≈40% rise in CO2 has had no measurable effect on temperature. I know it is hard to accept. But there it is.
Finally, your "projections" are simply more computer modeled conjecture. The planet says you are wrong. Who should we listen to, Planet Earth? Or our lyin' eyes?
Anyone can program GIGO: Garbage In, Gospel Out. But the real world is telling the truth:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e55964fe970c-pi
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Just because CO2 is excited by IR does not mean that the planet is warming due to AGW.
First things first. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we can calculate that the amount of greenhouse effect from a doubling of CO2 as ≈1°C.
As I keep pointing out, the real world does not agree with your 'calculation'. One of the two, therefore, is wrong.
As Prof Richard Feynman states, if it doesn't agree with observation, if it doesn't agree with experiment, it is WRONG:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
CO2 is a GHG. But the numbers are wildly inflated. They are wrong. The real world proves that, and nobody is going to accept your conjecture over real world observations.
Planet Earth is falsifying your conjecture. That's all there is to it.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: As I keep pointing out, the real world does not agree with your ‘calculation’. One of the two, therefore, is wrong.
Well, the calculation isn't likely to be wrong as it is based on fundamental physics. It is possible there is a countervailing influence, but you have yet to bother addressing such mundane matters. As for observation, the Earth is going through a historically rapid warming, consistent with greenhouse warming.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Z says:
As for observation, the Earth is going through a
historically rapidnormal warming, consistent withgreenhousethe warming trend since the LIA.There. Fixed it for you.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:14/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:13.885/detrend:-0.02/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.42/detrend:-0.23/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:14.1/detrend:-0.23/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/offset:14
Dr. Everett V. Scott: As for observation, the Earth is going through a rapid normal warming, consistent with the warming trend since the LIA.
The current warming trend is anomalous. But, in any case, what caused the warming since the Little Ice Age? Can you identify the mechanisms, and show that they are sufficient to explain the current trend?
By the way, the graph merely shows warming since 1840, which hardly supports your point. This gives a better view.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
The current trend is clearly anomalous.
Z is still here, arguing his hopeless case?? Z, you lost the argument a couple of weeks ago.
Z says:
"The current warming trend is anomalous."
No, it is not:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/alternativeinterpretationofgmtfig2.png?w=640&h=429
The current rise in temperatures is well within the same long term parameters since the LIA. How many times do you have to be shown that is the case?? How many different charts and graphs, based on peer reviewed papers and empirical observations from numerous different sources, do you need? I have more available if you are still confused. Just ask, and I'll post them.
I have posted empirical evidence showing conclusively that the planet is warming along the same trend line since the LIA. There has been no acceleration or deceleration of that natural warming trend, which goes back to the 1600's; more than three centuries, along the exact same trend line. If CO2 made a measurable difference, temperatures would be skyrocketing upward. They are not. They are rising at the same rate they always have since the LIA, no more and no less.
In the 1600's and 1700's, CO2 was ≈280 ppmv. Today, it is ≈392 ppmv. Despite that very large increase in CO2, global temperatures continue to rise along the very same long term trend line, within narrow parameters. I have posted numerous charts showing that fact, while z continues to emit nonsense opinions that are contradicted by real world observations. There has been no acceleration of temperatures, despite z's religious true belief. The only logical conclusion is that CO2 has very little effect on global temperatures; an effect that is too minuscule to even measure.
Click on my name, and c'mon over to the internet's "Best Science & Technology" website. Discover reality. It is far superior to true belief.
I have proved that CO2 has not caused any acceleration in temperatures. None. Re-read my posts and charts upthread, and you will see that it is only by the use of fabricated charts, that an artifact purportedly showing non-existent 'acceleration' fools you into believing the phony charts that have now replaced Michael Mann's debunked 'hokey stick' chart. The noaa spaghetti charts are no more honest than Mann's original chart -- which the UN/IPCC can no longer publish, because Nature was forced to issue a Corregendum refuting Mann's paper. And make no mistake, the UN/IPCC LOVED Mann's scary looking chart. The new spaghetti charts are a confusing mishmash based on computer models, and they are even inferior to Mann's phony chart. All of them have one thing in common: they misrepresent reality.
Finally, z asks: "... what caused the warming since the Little Ice Age? Can you identify the mechanisms, and show that they are sufficient to explain the current trend?"
I cannot explain all the causes of the warming since the LIA [and neither can z, or anyone else]. What I can do is eliminate one putative cause: CO2.
z does not seem to understand that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The job of skeptics is to debunk nonsense like "carbon" as the cause of runaway global warming. I have shown conclusively that CO2 makes no difference to the rise in global temperatures. The planet warms at exactly the same rate, whether CO2 is 280 ppmv, or 390 ppmv. There is no acceleration above past temperature parameters. None. Therefore, CO2 is logically eliminated as the cause of warming. QED
Dr. Everett V. Scott: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/alternativeinterpretationofgmtfig2.png?w=640&h=429
The current rise in temperatures is well within the same long term parameters since the LIA.
You just pointed to a graph from 1840 to argue the trend is consistent with the trend over the last 1000 years, just as you did before.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: z does not seem to understand that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove.
When you make a claim, you should support those claims. In particular, you claimed that CO2 was having unmeasurable effects on the Earth's temperature.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: In the 1600′s and 1700′s, CO2 was ≈280 ppmv. Today, it is ≈392 ppmv.
Let's try this. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? If so, what is the expected effect of a doubling of CO2?
Let's try this instead: I've patiently attempted for almost a month to educate you, with dozens of charts and graphs of the real world. But as I suspected, your religious true belief in CO2=CAGW resists all attempts at scientific enlightenment. A Jehovah's Witness could not be more closed-minded. So I'm moving on to the internet's "Best Science & Technology" site. Feel free to click on my name and join the rest of us there: it's a site with 120 million+ unique visits, and almost a million reader comments. That is where I normally reside; among intelligent profesionals educated in the hard sciences. I am helping to inform the public there, and most all of them get it. I doubt the scales will ever fall from your own eyes. But you're invited to give it a try.
And for old times' sake:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Let’s try this instead
In other words, you won't answer a simple question about your position.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Feel free to click on my name and join the rest of us there: it’s a site with 120 million+ unique visits, and almost a million reader comments.
That's probably more hits than the journals Nature and Geophysics put together!