Figure 2
Figure 1
In “The Man-Made Myth,” Matt Cook and Dakin Sloss present a thoroughly inaccurate argument against climate change science and the scientific consensus. In reality, the evidence presented fits neatly into the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, and a substantial debate about the fundamental conclusions of climate science does not exist among experts who publish on the topic in refereed literature.
The data presented regarding the relative timing of temperature and CO2 fluctuations do not contradict anthropogenic climate change theories. The authors point to data from the end of the last ice age to demonstrate that global temperature changes preceded changes in CO2 concentrations by several hundred years, concluding that temperature drives CO2 levels. From this they infer that CO2 does not drive temperature change either in ice ages or during the past century.
The latter conclusion is flawed logic. There are multiple initiators of temperature change in the climate system. The importance of CO2 and methane levels in these ancient climates comes from their role as feedback agents that amplify temperature changes. In fact, models run to replicate ice age conditions cannot make the Southern Hemisphere nearly as cold as data suggests without accounting for drops in CO2 and methane. Ice age data actually reinforce anthropogenic warming theories.
The authors also claim that climate models including CO2 forcing are less accurate than models that do not emphasize the role of CO2, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Figure 1, taken from Chapter 9 of the 4th IPCC Report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), compares the results of simulations taking into account anthropogenic factors, predominantly the release of CO2, to those simulations taking into account only natural climate variability. The warming trend over the past century is accurately predicted only by the models which take anthropogenic forcing into account. These models are extensively evaluated for their ability to reproduce observations of the atmosphere and oceans. They can simulate the temperature trend of the past century with remarkable accuracy. Uncertainties in climate predictions do exist, but the models unanimously predict higher temperatures as CO2 emissions increase.
The authors go on to claim that the temperature rise in the last 150 years is attributable to the end of the “Little Ice Age”, but this may explain only part of the increase in temperature observed in the first half of the last century. It does not explain the rapid acceleration in warming seen in the past 50 years. Here, Cook and Sloss avoid addressing a fact of basic chemistry: CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps radiation and warms the Earth’s surface. Human beings release over 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, and most of these emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels in various activities unique to the industrial age. Correspondingly, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by 35% since 1832. Climate models can and do account for natural changes since the Little Ice Age, but CO2 changes remain the dominant factor. Figure 2, taken from the IPCC 4th Assessment, shows the global temperature trend in the last 150 years. The rate of warming increases dramatically from the gradual rate seen at the end of the Little Ice Age to the rapid pace observed in the past few decades.
The final argument in the article questions the scientific consensus on climate change, but the evidence presented is remarkably unconvincing. Cook and Sloss cite the existence of a contrarian report issued by the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change, a group of climate deniers supported primarily by the Heartland Institute. They boast that the group’s report garnered 31,478 signatures from American scientists who support the document’s point of view. This is misleading, since the participants merely signed a two-paragraph petition available on the PetitionProject.org website. The signer must self-identify as a holder of a B.S., M.S., or Ph.D. in any scientific field to be considered a “scientist”. As over 80 million Americans hold at least a bachelor’s degree, finding 31,478 self-verified science degree holders willing to sign a petition does not discredit the consensus view of climate change. According to the website, only 578 of the individuals claimed to be trained in atmospheric science, and only 39 in climatology.
The ranks of qualified climate change skeptics are vanishingly thin. A comprehensive study released by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman in January, 2009 polled 10,257 Earth scientists from academic institutions, federal research facilities, national laboratories, and state geological surveys. Of the 3,146 respondents, over 90% of whom held Ph.D.s, 82% answered “yes” to the question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Of the actively publishing climate scientists, 96.2% answered “yes.” The study concludes that the debate among climate scientists who publish articles on the subject in peer-reviewed journals is virtually nonexistent.
The data that allegedly contradicts anthropogenic global warming in fact fit neatly into our modern understanding of the climate. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that human activity is impacting the climate. Efforts by Stanford and its students to reduce their carbon footprints are ethically commendable in light of the preponderance of evidence suggesting that human beings bear responsibility for global warming.
Those interested in fighting the flood of pseudoscience criticizing climate change should consult the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, available here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm, or any of a dozen recent reports of the US National Academies of Science, such as: http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml and http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/ecological-impacts.shtml.
Brett Dietz is an alumnus of Stanford University, where he studied Atmosphere and Energy. Other contributors to this piece include: Karim Farhat (Energy Resources Engineering); Stephen H. Schneider (Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies); Carolyn Snyder (Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources); John Ten Hoeve (Atmosphere and Energy).
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
As interesting as this article is, I have heard this argument before. In my field of work, the error in the modeling and in the data is beyond any error that would be acceptable in my field of research. Either way, I’ll save myself the time and target one issue:
Hadley CRU- “hide the decline”
Discuss- and, please, I don’t want to hear “this is a non-issue”, because it is and issue. It’s called intellectual dishonesty and is embarrassing what used to be an honest and honorable profession.
“Human activity is impacting the climate” does not necessarily mean “we should spend trillions in an all-out effort to reduce carbon emissions”. There are several other things that have to be true for the latter course of action to make sense; I’ve discussed them in our latest blog post. Briefly, while I agree that the basic case for anthropogenic global warming is well-established and should be considered unaffected by the Climategate leak, other assumptions behind our current political trajectory have been cast into very serious doubt by both Climategate and the inexplicably hostile reaction of so much of the research community to SuperFreakonomics a month earlier.
Consider, for example, your remark about the commendability of reducing carbon footprints. On the one hand, I’m not going to criticize such behavior. Ceteris paribus, it shouldn’t really hurt. But one needs to be realistic about the limitations of that approach. Given the reality of China and India’s likely future economic growth and the additional emissions that’ll accompany it, we can’t just be penny-wise. Our main focus should really be at the pound level.
@The California Review:
To your last paragraph. We generally like to think the will of the public informs the leaders of the world. While not as inherent in China as a democratic nation, the modern-day level of education necessitates a response to the opinion of the masses. You tell me, did everyone in government want to spend millions of dollars on nation-wide land lines and electrification or was it in part forced by public demand for the common good?
Tom,
Thank you for your comment. I refer you to the editorial published by the journal Nature on December 3, available here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html. The article explains that there is nothing in the e-mails to support denialists’ conspiracy theories.
The Nature article briefly discusses the particular e-mail you mention. An informed reading of the exchange reveals nothing so problematic as you suggest. If you are interested in a more detailed explanation for the “hide the decline” fragment you quote in your comment, please see the following post on Realclimate.org: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/. Paragraph 7 may be of particular interest to you.
Brett,
Thank you for responding to my query.
I have read the entire context of the emails (amongst others) and would like to know, other than “it’s out of context” or “it’s no big deal”, why hiding a decline in temperature or a decline per tree ring data is not of issue. Furthermore, locking people out of the peer-review process is unethical and deplorable.
I took the time to read these emails and never have I written an email to a colleague or my PI that discussed “hiding” data, locking people out of the peer-review process, or lamenting that I couldn’t hide data or observations that conflict with my previous research. It is our job to be ethical and to have open and transparent methods of data collection, data, and proper peer review.
If we had taken the perspective that we do on global warming, or climate change as the PC term is currently, with respect to continental drift or other prior incorrect research/theories, we would still be swallowing a lot of BS. It’s a shame faith to ideology and theory has overtaken science to shun any other conflicting observations. Conflicting science should be embraced- for it leads us to the ultimate conclusion and the informed decision.
I know we will disagree. I believe this is an issue and needs to be addressed, you don’t. I know where my research ethics lie.
Am I correct to observe that Mr. Dietz has provided links to Mann (peers) defending Mann when citing realclimate.org blog to state that the hacked HAD-CRU e-mails are not of importance? Micheal Mann is a contributor to realclimate.org
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-mann/
Do you have any other sources that are not editorial postings or some sources that do not have a vested interest in this e-mail matter to cite?
If the e-mails are not of import-why would some unknown person risk criminal hacking charges to post anonymously onto a Russian server?
Have you read the e-mails? I have and it is not benign.
@Lucas:
Interesting that you mention land lines. It may be fair to liken carbon footprint reduction to land line construction… in an age of cell phones. I was personally more affected by the response to SuperFreakonomics than the email leak, because the former smacked too much of land line construction companies spreading FUD about the wireless alternative.
Anyway, to answer your rhetorical question, the erstwhile political “consensus” was driven by some level of misinformation to the public, and this misinformation is now being partially corrected. Despite sometimes disturbing levels of hysteria and exaggeration, there’s good reason to hope that public demand here will, on net, become more rational.
@DA:
While the emails are not benign, I don’t know about the “unknown person risk criminal hacking charges” narrative. This may actually be more of a clash of the titans scenario than David vs. Goliath, if it turns out that part of the Russian government was behind the leak.
We need to do our best to look at the data available to us without being biased toward either side.
@The California Review: I agree completely we do need to look at the data in a non-biased manner.
I would expect an honest assessment is that they just do not know for sure one way or the other. Given some of the error bars in some of the IPCC studies.
Here’s a bit more on the politicizing of the issues of the e-mails. Not sure what jurisdiction the US Congress would have over e-mails hacked from UK server and then dumped on a Russian server. lol-maybe a job for Interpol, but who knows?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe
A clash of the Titans scenario definitely thickens the plot, early speculation was that the hacked e-mails were dumped on the Russian server from somewhere in Turkey-so who knows who hacked the University of East Anglia server. I stand corrected, as persons would probably be more accurate. It certainly will be interesting as the whole thing unfolds. I can say the e-mails were quite interesting reading for myself.
I just would like to interject and take this forum as an opportunity to bring your attention to a very timely article by John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American: “Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense”.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Consider this with an open mind and ego aside.
Recent Statement from the UK science community:
‘December 9, 2009
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
[Signatures]”
Now consider this tongue in cheek “Statement from the Polish science community”
“December 9, 1543
We, members of the Polish science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for the Ptolemaic system of the geocentric movement of the sun, moon and stars and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to the hand of God. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of astronomy draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the Vatican’s Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that “the movement of the celestial bodies around the earth is unequivocal” and that “Most of the eccentric planetary orbits since the mid-2nd century are very likely due to the failings of mortals to comprehend our Heavenly Father’s grand scheme”.
[Signatures]”
Imagine if Mr. Copernicus’s controversial work, On The Revolutions Of The Celestial Spheres, had been silenced? Or deemed
Further compounded by the The Met Office admitting that many of the 1,700 signatories did not work on climate change. So are they zoologists or sociologists what? If this is the case, how can these scientists who are not experts in the field of climatology speak to the veracity of the CRU raw data and the equations/code the CRU used to correct the raw data? Especially when the CRU has refused to release that data.
I am curious about this part of the statement: “very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
Is “very likely” a certainty-or is the scientific data inconclusive?
“very likely” can be 80% error bar-it’s all relative. “very likely” is a broad statement. “Observed” can be broad, too, as doesn’t “observed” data need to be interpreted? How was the observed data interpreted by CRU and IPCC? No one really knows outside of CRU and IPCC as the FOI requests have been denied for a variety of reasons-and documented in the e-mails.
Can anyone guarantee that the science is 80%-95% accurate regarding the global warming and that the measures suggested in Kyoto and Copenhagen and Cap N Trade will make a significant difference for the future? Is anyone even 70% positive that this is the case? Would the change in Co2 be 3% say or minimal-or would the impact be of significance?
None of these scientists can honestly guarantee that certainty. Exactly how was the “observational evidence” interpreted and why the secrecy over the raw data and the modeling algorithms/computer code? Why did CRU state they had “thrown away” their raw data, the storage capacities in computers in the 80s could not hold the data, etc, and now CRU states have found the data-so why the discrepancies and artful dodging? A yes or no question is usually answered with yes or no. If the data is 100% accurate, or even 80% accurate, why the song and dance and diversions from Phillip Jones and the CRU in the past? What about the CRU computer code issues discussed in the e-mails? And the temperature stations and means of data collection, there have been some questions there, too. And were temps averaged from nearby stations or not and was it consistent?
Given that the UN bases their policy on the IPCC and the IPCC bases their policy on the CRU-what harm is there in double checking the figures and data?
Why is another look at the data considered heretical?
And why is it when anyone suggests further investigation they are accused of being a denier?
I am reminded of some other UK silliness-beyond that of the East Anglia CRU Climate Mafioso-to question is heretical…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU&feature=fvw
This should not be an ego thing or a philosophical issue.
Isn’t science about questioning and exploration?
The full scientific studies are not complete and the proverbial “fat lady” has not sung in this case.
Why is there harm in discussing and investigating the issue further? Might be a good idea to be sure of the data before we transform the entire world economy?
And why would Al Gore say the most recent e-mail from the CRU e-mails was 10 years old when it was one month old and most of the questionable e-mails were in the past 12-18 months?
Why the dishonesty-this should be a strictly scientific issue.
Furthermore, we could consider this a reasonable possibility, maybe that the e-mail release was not a hacking situation but an inside whistleblower release-this should be considered just as a Russian Goliath scenario should be considered. All possibilities should be examined. We must keep an open mind.
Where is the harm in fully investigating the issue?
Isn’t that is what science is all about-full investigation of the data and interpretation processes?
At this point, I do not think anyone can legitimately say that global warming is mainly due to Co2 from human output or not-they do not know yet. Some of it is human caused-but how much and to institute the total ban of coal and oil, as some environmentalists suggest-will it even make a significant difference in light of the problems it would cause regarding the economy?
Which came first the Co2 or the warming? There are studies that support both theories. They just do not know.
What are your thoughts on the MET office petition where 1700+ scientists, not all climate scientists signed a petition in support of the integrity of climate science research?
See the quote in my above post as that was taken from “MET petition”.
Link here to the aforementioned petition-in case you wish to compare it with my copy and paste above: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6950783.ece
I see your 1,700 scientists and raise you 30,000 scientists-of which 9,000 are Phds.- who are currently filing Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Who is correct in this matter the 1,700 scientists from the MET or the 30,000 suing NASA under FOI act?
Maybe research from East Anglia CRU and IPCC could be QC’ed-if all in order fine-but if not the dialog must be opened in the matter.
Especially given new information that has come to light regarding the veracity of CRU’s “calibration” of raw data. CA Review should get a kick out of this one:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
What is the harm of further research?
What is the rush?
What is the emergency?
Or is it about the money???
The $100 Billion a year Clinton committed at Copenhagen that US to “underdeveloped countries”? Especially, since the Food for Oil thing turned out so squeaky clean-Kofi Annan and Nadhmi Auchi-(cough cough)? I know let’s give more money to the UN to manage!!!! Let’s borrow from China to pay China our global warming penance $$$. B/c Both China and India are considered underdeveloped countries.
Or this? Gore invests $75M and gets return of $560M Stimulus money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
Nothing has done more to destroy the credibility of “science” than the global warming scare. Even more disturbing is watching supposedly intelligent people denigrate their profession by arguing in favor of bad data and corruption. Only one thing is being proven- that anthropomorphic global warming was, is, and always will be more about politics and money than real science.
I am an evironmentalist who believes that the wisdom of sustainability stands on its own …
Prior to “climategate” I began studying CC in order to become informed enough to engage “deniers” in conversation …
The more I looked … the more uncertain I became. As I looked at the “evidence” I started thinking about the term “climate derivatives” … as with financial derivatives, cleverly packaged models and studies with questionable underlying value.
The CC leaderships clear desire and unknown degree of success in suppressing opposing views ALONE calls for full reevaluation.
The attempts to hide data and methodology ALONE calls for full reevaluation.
Doing this quickly, cleanly and openly might have restored credibility. The “it doesnt really matter” approach only compounded the problem.
And Mr. Dietz, please check what the “hide that decline” really meant. The notion of substituing measurements for proxy data has three MAJOR problems:
1) it shows a desire to produce a specific result
2) it calls into question the validity of the proxy i.e. perhaps other “warm periods” were missed by the proxy.
3) it creates the possibility that the data was “cherry picked” to produce the aforementioned desired result.
Now please, set aside all I have said, Mr. Dietz and PLEASE answer DA’s very simple question: What is the harm of continuing an open minded scientific investigation ?
Pls answer:
What is the harm of continuing an open minded scientific investigation ?
http://www.ecowho.com/articles/42/Climategate,_what_is_going_on?.html