Cross-posted from the Wonk Room.
Stephen J. Dubner, co-author of SuperFreakonomics, has embraced charges by the right wing that a handful of illegally obtained private emails means that the scientific consensus on climate change is actually a dangerous conspiracy.
Dubner lent credence to the fevered “ClimateGate” ravings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and other global warming deniers in an interview with Fox Business Network host David Asman. Dubner purports that the hacked University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit emails reveal that the supposed “consensus” on global warming is because “everybody’s scared to be an outlier, everybody’s scared to be a skeptic.”
After Asman compared climate scientists to Stalin and Hitler—we’re not kidding—Dubner jumped in to accuse “potent” scientists of “colluding” to “tell Al Gore what to say,” and “distorting evidence” to “make their findings be right for their position”:
You can’t read these e-mails and feel that the IPCC’s or the major climate scientists’ findings and predictions about global warming are kosher. You can’t. They may be, but if you read these you have to have a whole lot of skepticism about that. And of course, coming into Copenhagen these are going to have a big effect on how the world looks at you. They’re going to say, “Wait a minute. You say these climate scientists have been telling us we have to stop burning fossil fuel tomorrow?”
Watch it:
By asking whether “we have to stop burning fossil fuel tomorrow,” Dubner—a top blogger for the New York Times—gets to the heart of why this bizarre theory of a cabal of all-powerful climatologists is getting support from conservative media and politicians. The incontrovertible science—based not on manipulated data but on decades of basic research—is that the burning of fossil fuels is drastically reshaping our planet’s climate, melting the glaciers, and acidifying the oceans. And the only known way to restore conditions to those safe for human civilization is to dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels. Doing so, however, would affect the incredible profits and power of the oil and coal industries, and of their ideological allies.
One of the scientists, for example, who is “telling us we have to stop burning fossil fuel tomorrow” is Ken Caldeira, who Dubner and Levitt falsely portray in their book as a supporter of their mindless contrarianism. Is Dubner now accusing Caldeira of being part of this conspiracy?
Dubner continues:
But the point is this: carbon mitigation as a plan to stop global warming—even if you devoutly believe that global warming is the biggest problem we ever faced—won’t work.
This is an even more radical claim than what’s in SuperFreakonomics, in which Dubner and co-author Steven Levitt merely argue—based on flawed logic and falsehoods—that carbon mitigation would be ruinously expensive and difficult.
In fact, if we stop treating our atmosphere like a sewer, the climate system will heal itself over time, potentially more rapidly than we expect. That our past inaction will continue to bear consequences into the future is a reason to act with greater swiftness, not to dither further. The longer we delay, the more difficult and expensive the challenge to reduce pollution while adapting to a hostile world.
Seeking sustainability, finding skeptics at the American Farm Bureau meeting
Senate’s chief climate denier makes Copenhagen cameo
Eugene Mirman tackles the big issues ... and climate skeptics
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 10:01 am
25 Nov 2009
There's an article in last week's issue of Science by Indian researchers who were not afraid to publish their findings that the Himalayan glaciers are not retreating as fast as has been claimed by other climatologists. Some glaciers have slowed, some have reversed.
Being published in Science is a much sought after honor in the science monkey troop and this article is proof that the scientific method is alive and well. Any researcher who pees his pants at the thought of publishing work that contradicts another researcher should just get used to that warm feeling because there will always be a researcher who disagrees with you.
Tim Searchinger has been vilified for his publications in Science by the biofuel lobby. I don't see him backing down. Jim Hansen has become a pariah among conservatives. He's out there getting arrested protesting coal.
Of course, if anyone at FOX read that article in the journal Science, they would claim it is evidence against global warming because that is what they and their frightened viewers want to hear.
Why aren't the Himalayan glaciers retreating like most others? Researchers will get to the bottom of it. One hypothesis is that high altitude glaciers are impacted less by temperature than by snowfall. Think about it. At 18,000 feet it does not drop below freezing very often and precipitation is almost always going to be in the form of snow, which may actually increase in that area due to global warming.
Conservatives are by definition, change adverse. Climate change crashes up against their simplified world view that everything is, and always will be just fine ...amen.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:58 am
26 Nov 2009
It's a similar situation at the ice caps most of the year bio-d, any precip turns to snow/ice. Of course open water in the Arctic is now increasing rain over ice sheets in summer and forming glacial lakes that stream down through cracks and lubricate the ice dumping it into the warmer waters at an alarming exponentially increasing rate.
Since Lake Superior has had open water all winter, lake effect snow has been helping drought stricken areas near the shore. Any sort of natural mediation is welcome, but will probably not put a signifigant fight against factors like exponential ice melt.
Snow/ice cover in polar regions reflects 24/7 sunlight in the warm season, darker water and ground absorb it. More snow that lasts longer could have a huge cooling effect. It's mainly having a huge warming effect now, as less snow/ice is the trend. I wonder what percentage of glacial ice still benefits from higher precipitation at cold altitudes?
Here's another cooling possibility from mother earth. A few potential supervolcanoes, like the magma bubble under yellowstone, maybe ready to bring some "nuclear winter" type cooling with massive release of particulate matter, as in 1816 "the year without a summer". That kind of intervention might be worse than the problem. There are signs that where glaciers and aquifers are dissapearing as in Alaska and Yellowstone, the gravitational counter pressure from the water that helps hold the magma in check is failing. Land is measurably rising.
Lake Superior was formed by the weight of ice and water pressing down, so is it reasonable to infer that removing water weight could spur volcanic eruptions? I think so. What is the magma situation under Iceland Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets? We know Iceland is a geothermal energy paradise and as in Yellowstone hot springs are all over.
Permalink
dbaker Posted 10:18 am
25 Nov 2009
Dennis Baker
Permalink
dbaker Posted 10:23 am
25 Nov 2009
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectance of humans.
yours sincerely
Dennis Baker
Permalink
dbaker Posted 10:35 am
25 Nov 2009
(human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen)
The USA discharges trillions of tons of sewage annually sufficent quanity to sustain eletrical generation requirements of the USA
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intence radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste
because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of Clean water and Clean air will increase the life expectancy of humans
Permalink
Chic_Bowdrie Posted 2:17 pm
25 Nov 2009
I'm at a disadvantage not having read SuperFreakonomics. However, in light of the CRU email scandal, some of your comments seem a bit untimely.
"The incontrovertible science--based not on manipulated data but on decades of basic research--is that the burning of fossil fuels is drastically reshaping our planet’s climate, melting the glaciers, and acidifying the oceans." This presupposes that the CO2 feedback hypothesis is proven. I'm still looking for those "peer-reviewed" papers that shows the data. The main argument of the IPCC folks is "No credible scientific literature has been published since the AR4 assessment that supports
alternative hypotheses to explain the warming trend." Well if these scientists are obstructing publication of opposing views, it's no wonder.
"And the only known way to restore conditions to those safe for human civilization is to dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels." Again, only an untested hypothesis indicates temps will drop if CO2 does.
"... the climate system will heal itself over time" presupposes that the climate is ill. Who's to say today's temperatures aren't ideal?
Finally, Brad, your last link to "adapting to a hostile world" contains a box on page 12 titled "Is the greenhouse effect already saturated, so that adding more CO2 makes no difference?" The subsequent rebuttal does not take into account convection causing high cooler air to replace lower warm air. Couldn't these effects be greater than warming due to radiation?
Permalink
dbaker Posted 2:27 pm
25 Nov 2009
how about this then?
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
The most significant recent climate change findings are:
Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present �day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.
Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.
Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.
Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.
Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.
Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as � 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.
Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (�tipping points�) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.
The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society � with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases � need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
Permalink
enviroperk Posted 3:38 pm
25 Nov 2009
One link would have been enough don't ya think?
This may be just one, insignificant, lab with a lot of aggression, not a mainstream research facility. Also, the files may or may not be falsified or tampered with.
It is way too early to draw any conclusions from the file, which is quite a bit more than the deceptive statement above, "a hand full of emails". In fact the full file unzips to 173 MB of text files, pdf , Word docs, Fortran computer code word-processing documents, PDF files, formatted data files and misc text files. See here: http://di2.nu/foia/
The computer science side of me is quite concerned about the programers extensive "read_me" file and samples on the modeling code and the data normalization. I can only hope that the software and data in the shape documented was not the basis for any projections used by other researchers.
This incident makes a good case for opening up all of the data and source code for the climate models for public inspection. I feel that the secrecy has done great harm to the credibility perception. This gives a whole group of people prima-facia evidence that climate change projections are less than good science. Not good at all.
Permalink
dbaker Posted 7:32 pm
25 Nov 2009
How are you held accoutable then?
everyone else will held accountable for listening to ya!
I have a solution whats the problem with that other than you do not own the technology!
Permalink
acnicolet Posted 11:02 am
26 Nov 2009
This is great - So, Dubner, your proposal is that because you personally feel that this problem is unsolvable with any kind of effort, we should just let it go? Hell - lets just fire up those coal-plants and live out our lives of cheap unconstrained consumption while we can - and leave the mess to our children!
Andreas
Read my blog on http://www.climateculprits.blogspot.com
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 6:27 pm
26 Nov 2009
A very large proportion of the data, modelling code etc. is in fact freely available for download.
The denialists are only interested in the bits that are not yet available. When those are ready, they'll lose interest in them as well. This is because they aren't interested in furthering the science, only in slinging mud, by for example sleezing around in illegally obtained emails hacked from university servers, looking for snippets they can misinterpret and misquote out of context.
For an extensive list of websites and servers where you can find data and code that is currently freely available go to http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/. Knock yourself out. There are terabytes of information there.
For example, how about you download the GISS ModelE climate model from NASA's Goddard Institute,. inspect the code for us to see if it meets your standards and then report back to us.
If you are concerned about the state of the software used by climate scientists, then perhaps you should lobby for their funding to be increased. I hear that the total global computing budget for climate research is somewhere between that of the budgets of Nemo and Happyfeet. And these days scientists have to spend half their time fending off harassment from vindictive denialists.
Permalink
Chic_Bowdrie Posted 8:27 pm
26 Nov 2009
I know that a lot of skeptics have been busy doing the actual science of proposing and carrying out experiments that help figure out the unknowns the models don't yet handle well, like clouds, etc. Some day we will know how much CO2 affects temperature, but it won't be because we modelled it.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 9:16 pm
26 Nov 2009
Many of the models and much of the data have long been available for open review. How much longer will we have to wait for the 'skeptics' to take up the challenge and do some real science with them?
Can you offer any examples of science carried out by 'skeptics' that has in any way assisted, or promises to assist, with improved understanding of the climate system?
The prediction that increasing CO2 will dangerously increase global temperatures is not and has never been dependent on software implemented climate models. For explanations of this see the following articles on the SkepticalScience website:
* How we know global warming is happening? Pt 1
* How we know global warming is happening? Pt 2
* How do we know CO2 causes warming?
* Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
* The physical realities of global warming
* Measuring Earth's energy imbalance
However, because of the complexity of the system, it is only possible to get more accurate estimates of just how much warming we can expect given our expected CO2 emissions trajectory, by putting all the science together in software climate models.
Unless the skeptics and denialists have superhuman mental calculation abilities, they will be unable to do better without such models. Because they so stridently denounce the use of computer models (how quaintly Luddite of them) they have no way to put together all their self-contradictory claims in a manner that allows them implications to be tested. (Mind you, give the miss-mash incoherrent nature of their anti-science I guess the last thing they would want to do is put them together - the cogs would jam, the moles would fail, and untenable nature of so many of their ideas would be revealed for all to see.)
As for the hacked emails and files: a whistleblower would surely leak specific information that documented some form of wrongdoing. That's a very different proposition from releasing 10 years worth of emails and files via a Russian server and inviting blog posters to trawl through it to find bits that they can misinterpret. A number of the things that denialists are highlighting in those emails as proof of fraud actually refer to work that has been openly discussed in the full light of peer reviewed literature. Others reveal the deep frustration scientists feel over the unremitting avalanche of attacks that they are these days submitted to by denialists. The giggling euphoria expressed as people delve into the hacked emails on forums such as the climate Audit and Watts Up With That website - all the while finding very little of substance - is as illuminating about the nature and credibility of denialists. Ditto for the completely unjustified crowing in some portions of the media about proof of a World wide climate science conspiracy of Devinci Code proportions.
Permalink
Chic_Bowdrie Posted 8:37 am
27 Nov 2009
Thanks for the references, I will be studying them for evidence of the CO2 temperature relationship.
Here are just a few examples of scientists working on an improved understanding of the climate system, the cosmic ray research exemplified here http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/1/71
and high altitude cloud research described here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm and the radiation budget work done here http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf
I didn't find these articles by visiting blog sites. I read the arguments from both sides and I ask how can that be? Then I look for the studies that support those arguments.
I hope the result of this email scandal will be that both sides take a more rigorous look at the science and give their political agendas a rest.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 9:23 pm
26 Nov 2009
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 5:46 pm
27 Nov 2009
Are the physical chemistry models you mention statistical in nature or are they based on the physics of the system as is the case with GCMs (general circulation climate models)? With a statistic model you can tune the parameters at will until your medal results match your data. In a physics based model you have to set the parameters etc. to values that are derived from studies of real World physics.
I note that the Author of the second article you mention (Roy Spencer) has written that he does not agree that the conclusions of the authors (Lindzen & Choi) in the paper of your third reference are supported by the augments and data they present.
However, scientists regularly find flaws in each other's work and it is in working out where the truth actually lies that the scientific consensus is built and improved. I agree though that Spencer and Lindzen are perhaps the best examples of scientists who can be considered to be true skeptics and who actually do research to back up their skepticism. I get the impression that other climate scientists take them seriously, and while finding their work flawed do consider it worthy of consideration. For an example of the deeply flawed nature of Spencers work being explained in all it's gory detail see How to Cook a Graph in Three Easy Lessons.
I lost respect for Lindzen when he published a post on Watts Up With That using uncorrected satellite data that he clearly knew was flawed because the satellites orbit had decayed. Had he included the orbital correction he would have had nothing to say. But the WUWT crowd loved it! Yet more definitive proof that global warming is a hoax!!
Permalink
keithm Posted 9:07 pm
27 Nov 2009
Think about it, there was a time when it would take days to run through models and come up with results, and it was expensive time as well, with any another academic wanting to use the shared resources. Now those same models can be run through in a matter of minutes if not an hour or two. This is just ideal for comparing all sorts of combinations of data and finding evidence (one way or the other) with respect to climate change.
Now we may think this is good thing being able to do all this modeling, but the danger is it results in making it very easy to 'follow the herd' and build upon what others have done. Here in lies the problem, if the work being built upon has flaws or unchallenged assumptions or bias - it invalidates everything built on top of it.
Now I'm not saying climategate is proof of this - but the ease of adaption and incorporation of others work into the ongoing work at a faster pace actually ramps up the importance of peer reviewing like never before. If that process of reviewing has been tampered with in any way, we are in a lot of trouble.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 10:33 pm
27 Nov 2009
You way overestimating the speed with which the models can be run. The faster computers get, the more parameters scientists can include in the models and the more fine grained they can make them. They take weeks, months or even years to run. I understand that even the latest super computers are not fast enough to run the experiments that climate scientists would like to run in any reasonable time frame. This is why it is very difficult to run models at fine enough a resolution to provide local scale climate predictions.
I understand that the hacked emails include discussions about several deeply flawed papers that the scientists were troubled to see make it to publication. Look at those papers and then read up to find out why the scientists thought they were so below par that they should not be published.
But more to the point, can you find any anti-global-warming papers in which any serious effort has been taken to investigate and validate or invalidate the models? Probably not because most of the anti-crowd can't bear to admit that the models might be useful. Can you find any mention of the suppression of such papers in the hacked emails. And can you find any ant-AGW scientists complaining that they had such papers suppressed. (Perhaps the anti-AGW scientists are part of the global conspiracy and are colluding with the climate scientists by not mentioning that their papers have been suppressed!)
If you want to run and investigate your own models you can try the edGCM model, sign up to run models for the climateprediction.net project, or if you are really hard core then investigate and run NASA's GISS ModelE climate model.
I wait in eager anticipation for any of the denialists to find flaws with, and to recommend improvements to GISS ModelE for example.
Permalink
keithm Posted 11:10 pm
27 Nov 2009
Yes, you can up the resolution of the models and trade time that way; you can also lower the resolution of the model and 'see' where it is going and tune... Academics are human and bias can occur even with the best of intentions - hence independent peer review is key.
There is something in this - people like Eduardo Zorita are flagging up that there is something 'wrong' in academia around Climate Change research - this needs to be objectively and independently looked into - there is literally too much at stake.
Keith
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 11:34 pm
27 Nov 2009
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:43 pm
28 Nov 2009
Beware the armchair climatologist:
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/11/armchair-climatologist.html
Permalink
keithm Posted 4:54 am
29 Nov 2009
I concur with Judith Curry, there is a desperate need for transparency without judgement or challenge (from both sides). 2 minds looking at a problem from different directions should be better than one.
Permalink
dbaker Posted 10:11 am
29 Nov 2009
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air , clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4 emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue solutions. I ve been able to convince most simply with concept of using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Dennis Baker
Permalink
dbaker Posted 10:13 am
29 Nov 2009
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air , clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4 emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue solutions. I've been able to convince most simply with concept of using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Dennis Baker
Permalink
enviroperk Posted 10:07 pm
30 Nov 2009
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html
Some excerpts:
"If the University of East Anglia had been sharing more of its data and the computer models and statistical simulations running that data, the email hack would have been much ado about nothing.
When doing important research about the potential future of the planet, scientists should have nothing to hide. Their obligation to the truth is an obligation to openness."
Permalink