I find that the evidence is still underwhelming. . . Primarily, what Im looking for is empirical evidence (which excludes computer models) which links human CO2 with catastrophic warming.I started to write a comment in reply, but I found that it raises a number of issues about the relationship of science, skepticism, and political policy, so I decided to make a separate post out of it:
Well, thanks for stopping by. I'm sorry you couldn't find what you were looking for. I'm sure the thousands of scientists who have worked for over a century on this problem are even more disappointed. The simple fact is that the science is what it is, whether or not you or anyone else likes it (or more importantly the policy implications). Like any branch of science, there are always some uncertainties involved. Whether those uncertainties are sufficient to preclude policy action is, however, a political question, not a scientific one. Although there are some legitimate scientific concerns, by and large these have been hijacked and used dishonestly for political purposes. (That was behind the original point of the BCL post.)
I have personally paid country club prices to see Lindzen present his position. FWIW, I'm confident he's sincere, but his "iris" hypothesis is just that, a proposal subject to testing. His theory, however, has been widely found by objective observers to be not supported by the evidence (one recent example here).
The Roger Pielkes (there are 2 of them, Jr. and Sr., although some might argue that there are in fact more), have made careers out of self-referential contrarianism. In the case of Jr., this has frequently taken the form of reckless charges of plagiarism, theft, bias, and fraud, all the while cloaking himself in the presumably infallible role of TheHonestBroker™. Their latest effort is meeting with legitimate skepticism on scientific grounds, but that has certainly not deterred the deniosphere from attempting to make political hay out of it.
As a degreed scientist with a minimal knowledge of physics, I find modern particle physics to be too complicated, confusing and counter-intuitive. However, I'm not wasting my time going around to physics forums denouncing the science and its practitioners as commie-pinko-enviro-nazis. Why is it, then, that climate science does provoke such reactions, even among Meteorologists Who Should Know Better? One of the meanings behind the name of this blog is that climate science, through its policy implications, has been inextricably linked to financial and economic issues. Once money comes into the picture, people get very crazy very quickly, and if large amounts of it are involved, even crazier; just look at the recent financial market insanity for proof.
So, the bottom line here is that anyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn't make it science, even if the proponent has the outward trappings of a scientist. Given the economic and political subtext of the discussion, it's not only fair but necessary to ask, "What are the financial and ideological motivations behind what is being said?"
Global warming theory is based on the CO2 greenhouse effect which was discovered over a century ago. I have a more-than-50-year-old atmospheric physics text on my shelf which describes and quantifies it quite well. The development of the computer models the deniosphere so loves to hate (Not Computer Models) has simply added more support to the underlying principles. These and other subsequent analyses have continued to improve confidence in the theory to the point that many scientists involved in the field have called for policy actions to limit the potential negative effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions. They have done this not only individually in some cases, but also through such organizations as scientific societies (including the AMS and AGU), the IPCC, and various national science academies. That has provoked a strong reaction from some who have a vested interest in inaction. A realistic debate about policy choices is one thing, but fraudulent smearing of the science and its practitioners is something else again. The proper response to those tactics is what BCL was discussing. I would call that true skepticism.
Posts
3 comments:
Hi Steve,
Thank you for this post. I believe however that you have misinterpreted my concerns and I will try to lay them out more clearly here. I do appreciate however, that you've taken the time to make a case and I realize that you're under absolutely no obligation to do so.
I will quote you in italics and respond below.
The simple fact is that the science is what it is, whether or not you or anyone else likes it (or more importantly the policy implications).
Agreed, and that's what Im trying to figure out: what the science is.
Although there are some legitimate scientific concerns, by and large these have been hijacked and used dishonestly for political purposes.
Perhaps that is the case, but I will try to focus on the legitimate scientific concerns.
His theory, however, has been widely found by objective observers to be not supported by the evidence (one recent example here).
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
However, I'm not wasting my time going around to physics forums denouncing the science and its practitioners as commie-pinko-enviro-nazis.
Of course not, that's because particle physics dont have the far-reaching policy implications of climate science. When particle physicists say they have a theory which suggests that we should re-organize the world economy as they see fit, they'll be subject to the same level of scrutiny as climate scientists.
One of the meanings behind the name of this blog is that climate science, through its policy implications, has been inextricably linked to financial and economic issues. Once money comes into the picture, people get very crazy very quickly, and if large amounts of it are involved, even crazier; just look at the recent financial market insanity for proof.
Couldnt agree more. Which is why, in my opinion, Goldman Sachs, which is poised to make billions off of a carbon market, and why Enron, before it collapsed, have an uncanny interest in climate science too. I dont mean to say that this proves anything either way, just that the money issue cuts both ways (also consider the number of jobs that would be lost if AGW would not be a problem).
"What are the financial and ideological motivations behind what is being said?"
Yes, by all means. Let's ask Al Gore that, and all those people whose jobs depend on the existence of a crisis.
Global warming theory is based on the CO2 greenhouse effect which was discovered over a century ago.
Ah finally, we're getting to the crux of the matter here: the science. Deniers dont deny the greenhouse effect. Extra co2 heats up the earth - I concede that point fully.
I'll take a small break and complete my thoughts in a subsequent post.
Ok, continuing from my previous comment.
CO2 does heat the earth by the greenhouse effect, and for any additional amount of CO2, we can quantify the extra heat that will be radiated back down to earth. I know you know this already, Im just illustrating where we agree and where our opinions diverge.
CO2 by itself however, is not a major cause for concern, even the IPCC admits this. The warming from doubling CO2, isolated from all other effects, would be about 1 degree Celsius. I dont believe this to be a point of contention for deniers.
Here's where the disagreements begin: feedbacks. Based on some of the links you provide, you seem to be aware of the feedbacks controversy. The catastrophic warming is predicated on a positive feedback from water vapor. No positive feedback, no catastrophic warming, no need for cap'n trade, no need for the IPCC, and no need for the thousands of bureaucrats who will be employed administering carbon reduction schemes.
The water vapor feedback hypothesis seems plausible on its face, but not necessarily probable. Regardless, it needs to be validated by empirical data. From what I can tell, it hasnt. This is crucial.
You say "the science is what it is, whether or not you or anyone else likes it". Well, fair enough, but what is the science? What is the empirical evidence showing a positive water vapor feedback?
Your links on the side bar which purport to debunk all denier claims either avoid this issue completely, admit that the positive water feedback has not been confirmed by empirical data, or merely suggest that data which points to negative feedbacks ought to be adjusted for this or that reason. I understand that sometimes data needs to be adjusted, but even if one were to take the adjusted data at face value, the positive water feedback has not been demonstrated.
In closing I'd like to address one of your last points, namely:
That has provoked a strong reaction from some who have a vested interest in inaction. A realistic debate about policy choices is one thing, but fraudulent smearing of the science and its practitioners is something else again.
I dont find it particularly shocking or surprising that the proposals to curb carbon emissions provoked a strong reaction. The opposite would be shocking and surprising.
Ours is a carbon-based economy. Our cars run on hydrocarbons, and the cheapest source of electricity today is still coal. Many towns and industries are entirely reliant on cheap coal-produced electricity. Most of the 3d world is still without electricity and for most of the 3d world, coal is their best hope of ever developing.
That is not to say that this point, by itself, puts the science of global warming into question. Its just to put things in perspective, if you tell the world to get off coal, I wouldnt expect the world to comply without at least asking some tough questions first.
The idea that we should just reorganize the world economy and just "trust the scientists because they said so" is entirely wrong. Scientists disagree after all.
While you're quick on the ball to realize that some "have a vested interest in inaction", you seem blind to the fact that, equally, some have a vested interest in action. Either way, the science ought to be rigorously examined and reasonable doubts ought to be addressed before drastic action is taken.
Taking drastic action without being reasonably certain of the threat we face would be just as wrong as ignoring a credible threat.
Anyways, since you seem very convinced yourself of the AGW hypothesis, I would be very grateful if you could share with me what piece of evidence convinced you.
Post a Comment