|
| |
THE GADFLY'S BLOG
2010
Gadfly Blogs for
2009,
2008, 2007,
2006, 2005,
2004.
See also The Gadfly's Crisis Papers Blog
We offer below,
random musings, reflections, correspondence, scraps of
work-in-progress, and other such miscellany, perchance worth sharing
but not ready for the prime time of formal publication.
February 2, 2010
A libertarian friend, who is a global
warming skeptic, writes that the climate change debate arouses his
suspicions regarding "precautionary thinking and policies" and "prior
restraint."
My reply:
Your note prompts a thought-experiment:
Would you have felt this way about "precautionary thinking" and "prior
restraint" on December 8, 1941?
Now suppose that scientists determine, with 50% confidence, that a
mountain-size meteor is headed toward earth which, if it impacts in ten
years, will result in a Chicxulub event (Yucatan, c. 60 million years ago),
and the extinction of all life larger than a cockroach.
Now suppose further that 97% of the scientists active in the relevant
specialties concur with this finding. (A
University of Chicago survey of 3,146 climate scientists found that 97%
believed in man-made global warming). Accordingly, a global conference
is convened where it is agreed that an aggressive, world-wide engineering
effort might succeed in "nudging" the doomsday rock away from a collision
trajectory.
Would a veto of the project due to qualms about "precautionary thinking" and
"prior restraint" be appropriate? Would it be appropriate of there were a 5%
confidence of a collision?
So how is this different from a projection that a 3 degree Celsius increase
in global temperature is likely, and a 5 degree increase is possible, if
there is no curtailment of CO2 emissions (i.e., "business as usual"), given
that the upper end of increase will lead to the abandonment of coastal
cities and farmland, crop failures, and the starvation of at least half of
the human population?
Of course, if 97% of active climate scientists are wrong, and the likes of
Fred Singer, Richard Lintzen, Frederick Seitz and the SEPP are right, then
the question is moot -- in this particular case. But these scenarios (meteor
and global warming) still raise the general question "in principle."
In short: are there not occasions which require collective action in the
face of common threats, and is not that collective action best accomplished
first through research and then through implementation by appropriate
scientific and technological experts? And is not that implementation
correctly described as "precautionary thinking (and action)" and "prior
restraint"?
What is the justification of a military establishment if not "precautionary
thinking" and "prior restraint"? (Albeit I would insist that the US Defense
budget is more than twice as much as is necessary, and is driven more by the
military-industrial complex than by necessity). Doesn't the libertarian
"minimalist state" concede that some institutions are required to secure the
fundamental triad of rights: life, liberty and property, through the "night
watchman" police, the military and the courts? How can one avoid describing
the function of these institution other than in terms of "precautionary
thinking" and "prior restraint"?
And finally, what is a "global defense" against a meteor strike or global
climate catastrophe other than "precautionary" thought and implementation
and "prior restraint" against a common threat to life, liberty and property?
Yes, global warming may be a "myth" and the consensus scientific view may be
wrong, as Sen. Inhofe and the SEPP would have us believe. Let us hope that
this is so. But do we dare act, or fail to act, on this hope? And if the
consensus view is ultimately refuted, the moral/political principles raised
by the spectre of climate change remain untouched. The stubborn question
remains, "yes, but what if..."? Other common emergencies demand
"precautionary thinking" and "prior restraint" -- military threats (e.g.,
December 7, 1941), "peak oil," the erosion of democracy and the rule of law
(e.g. "Citizens United v. FEC"), and meteor strikes. All of these potential
emergencies demand "precautionary" policies responsive to the libertarian
doctrine that the function of the state is to protect life, liberty and
property.
Here are two lengthy exchanges
at The Crisis Papers regarding my essay, "A Convenient Delusion."
As a scientist in the field of paleogenetics (and therefore a user of
paleoclimatology data), I try to educate the public about the basics of
rational thought. You are failing at step one. You cannot correctly identify
a statement of fact.
1. "The summer Arctic ice cap is likely to disappear completely in 30 to 40
years." This is not a fact, and could not possibly be a fact; it is a
projection that may be true or false.
2. "The decade of the 2000s was the warmest on record, containing eight of
the ten warmest years." This is better; at least it could conceivably be a
fact. But it is not a factual (the Medieval warm period was warmer than
today; the Minoan Warm period was much warmer than today).
3. "Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas". At last, a fact. But then you
bungle it by saying: "Without atmospheric CO2, most of the earth would be
too cold to support human life." This could be a fact, but it is (in fact)
not factual. Water is the greenhouse gas that prevents the Earth from
freezing.
4. "Methane is about 22 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon
dioxide, and vast amounts of methane are being released". A fact, followed
by a non-fact. You are trying to reproduce the idea that permafrost release
of methane will create a runaway greenhouse. But this did not happen in the
MWP, even though sea ice in the Arctic was largely gone.
5. "But with the advent of the industrial revolution and the massive
consumption of fossil fuels, the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has
almost doubled". Imprecision makes it impossible to decide if this is a fact
(doubled over what), but it is wrong in any case. The earliest records of
atmospheric CO2 are in 1820; they are higher than today.
Al Gore and the political class declared a winner in what was previously a
lively debate among scientists. The result was the politicization of
science, including blogs like yours from people who know no science, but
know how to parrot other parrots. In fact, Jim Hansen had an interesting
hypothesis, but the preponderance of evidence (that is, actual fact) says
that it is wrong.
One last point. You say that you cannot "swallow" the possibility that
"hundreds of millions of dollars" in establishment science might be wrong.
You need to get an education. Science frequently follows fads that are
false. For example, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the belief
that acid causes ulcers (in fact, it was hundreds of billions of dollars).
New drugs were developed, got FDA approval, and were prescribed billions of
times. In fact, ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection. The two
scientists (Barry Marshall and Robin Warren) who pointed this out (and were
later given the Nobel Prize for pointing this out) were subjected to years
of ridicule by establishment scientists (something that the Nobel Committee
discussed). Imagine how much more difficult their problem would have been if
they had also had the Vice President, the President, and bloggers like
yourself every day claiming that they were "deniers" of the "established
consensus" about gastrointestinal disease, and whose anti-science view of
how truth is determined (heck, if we have spent hundreds of millions on it,
it must be right) was politically favored as well as scientifically favored.
Steve Benner
From Mediamonitors.net
Ernest Partridge replies:
This is, at last, a worthy criticism. Even so, like most of the other
critics, Mr. Benner fails to supply citations for his claims.
Now to Mr. Benner's points, in order:
1. Much of our disagreement reduces to our different interpretations of
the word "fact." My interpretation is much broader than my critic's.
Arguably, too broad. Is it a "fact" that a solar eclipse will take place
in Indonesia on March 9, 2016? The NYT 2010 World Almanac says so
(p. 338). Is it a "fact" that sun will expand into a red giant in
five billion years? Is it a "fact" that it will be warmer next
July than it is now? Is it a "fact" that the sun will (appear to)
rise tomorrow morning? All these are "projections" into the
future. I believe that some projections are sufficiently certain
that they may qualify as "facts." Among these "facts," I would include
the projection (with cited references) that the Arctic will be ice free
in about forty years if present trends continue.
2. This troublesome claim about "the Medieval warm period" deserves
careful examination. Which I have done. A NOAA report,
"The Medieval Warm Period" states:
As paleoclimatic records have
become more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm
Period" or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were warmer over the
Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age", and
also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century... In
summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are
likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.
If you examine this NOAA page, you
will find a graph that combines thirteen separate paleoclimatological
studies. Only two of these show a significant "Medieval warm period,"
neither of which show more warming than in the late 20th century.
A measured assessment of the so-called "hockey stick" graph of global
temperatures for the past 1200 years may be found in the MIT Technology
Review article,
"Medieval
Global Warming."
For a responsible debunking of the "Medieval war period" diversion, see
Peter Sinclair's
"The Medieval Warming Crock".
As for the Minoan warm period (3300-3450 years ago), I am not qualified
to comment, except to note that this was a local, not a global, event
and that due to its distance in time, difficult to quantify.
3. I can not say with assurance that I was right and my critic is wrong
about the temperature of an Earth without CO2. I am not a climate
scientist, and so I rely on the findings of those that are. In any case,
this was an offhand remark in my essay with no significant bearing on
the strength of my argument. I should not have made it without citation.
So I have removed it from the Crisis Papers posting. Other internet
postings, alas, are beyond repair.
4. See
"Global Warming: Methane Could be Far Worse than Carbon Dioxide,"
then follow the links in the article. If my response to #2 is valid, the
comment here about the Medieval warming period is moot.
5. Mea culpa! Here I goofed. In fact, the atmospheric CO2 has not
doubled since the advent of the industrial revolution. I "heard it
somewhere" but failed to check it out. Inexcusable, especially in view
of my insistence that my critics cite their sources.
So here are the
facts: If we date "the advent of the industrial revolution" at 1750
(James Watt patented his steam engine in 1769), the atmospheric CO2 was
about 280 parts per million. Today it is approaching 390ppm. But here's
the kicker: in the 51 years since 1958, the CO2 level has risen by
75ppm, from 315 to 390.
CO2 levels in 1820 "higher than today?" NEVER have I encountered such a
claim! Where on earth does this come from? I simply do not believe it.
Where is the evidence? What citations? Lacking these, I will continue to
dismiss this claim.
"The preponderance of evidence (that is, actual fact) says that [Jim
Hansen] is wrong." Easy enough to say. Now cite that "preponderance of
evidence." On the contrary, "the preponderance of evidence" gathered by
working, peer-reviewed and publishing climate scientists
has convinced 97% of them to conclude that anthropogenic global
warming (AGW) is real.
Finally, regarding the "they all laughed at Christopher Columbus"
rejoinder:
Sure, just because virtually every scientist studying global climate
change accepts the hypothesis that the global atmosphere is warming at
an accelerating rate due to human activity (AGW), this does not prove
absolutely beyond all possible doubt that they are correct.
It does not prove this, simply because in science there are, in
principle, no absolute certainties. Far from being a weakness of
science, this condition, called
"falsifiability," is essential to science. According to the
falsifiability principle, there are numerous conceivable findings that
might "prove" that AGW is false: e.g., evidence from ice-core samples,
from global temperatures, from Mauna Kea measurements, etc. (Cf. the
IGCC, NAS, NOAA, AASS reports). But this conceivably refuting evidence
is not forthcoming, while the confirming evidence continues to
accumulate. Regrettably. I devoutly wish that what the climate
scientists were finding were not so.
Moreover, not knowing anything at all about the alleged acid/ulcer link
that you cite, I will stipulate that for awhile, many (most?) scientists
in the field were mistaken. (But I doubt that the number of scientists
and the amount of research involved with the study of ulcers was
remotely comparable with that of climate science). But what does that
prove? That we can't believe in any scientific research whatever because
it is occasionally wrong? Of course not! Overwhelming consensus among
scientific experts must count for something. And note also that
scientific fraud and error is corrected by more and better science. So
it was with the Piltdown Man, presumably with the acid/ulcer connection,
and so it will be with AGW if, as you claim, this too is false. But I
see no evidence of this. Again, regrettably.
Yes, "they all laughed" at Columbus, at Edison, and the Wright brothers.
But "they" also laughed at the inventors of perpetual motion machines,
at the discoverers of Atlantis and Noah's Ark, and at astrologers, UFO
buffs, creationists, etc. And "they" were right.
As for Columbus, it is quite possible that most Europeans of his day
believed that the Earth was flat. I just don't know if they did. But
most informed scholars at the time knew that the Earth was round, for
they were aware that
Eratosthenes had proved it so c. 240 BCE. The point?
Regardless of what most ordinary folk believe, or even some scientists
in other fields, the overwhelming majority of scientists who actively
study the earth's climate agree that global warming is real, is of human
origin, and is a threat to human civilization. And theirs is the opinion
that should count.
And so, at length, we return to the pivotal question of my essay:
Is the scientific affirmation
of anthropogenic global warming a "hoax," as Sen. Inhofe would have
us believe? Possibly. But to believe this one would also have to
believe either that (a) hundreds of millions of dollars of funded
and peer-reviewed research have systematically led to a false
conclusion, or (b) that thousands of scientists from around the
world are engaged in a giant conspiracy, or (c) that all these
scientists are simply fools. Sorry, but that is much more than I can
swallow.
Nothing you have written is
remotely responsive to this challenge. Certainly not an indication of
the indisputable fact that occasionally scientists -- even a "consensus"
of scientists -- get things wrong, only to be corrected eventually by
more and better science.
The Bottom Line: I am not a climate scientist, and I don't even play one
on TV. So I rely upon qualified scientists and their peer-reviewed and
published findings. Like all of these scientists, I do not like what
they are finding, for their research has very grave implication for
humanity.
But the sensible response is not to employ any and every available
sophistry to attempt to overturn the findings of these scientists. The
intelligent response is to take these finding seriously, refute them if
possible and if not, face up to their implications, and then implement
public policies to deal with them.
First, as a paleogeneticist, I am a user of climate science data and models;
I do not generate them. Therefore, I have no professional interest in seeing
one outcome over another; I am just interested in getting the truth so that
we can use it in our own research. This makes me an especially good person
to evaluate the current disaster that passes for "climate science'. Politics
has corrupted climate science so badly that one cannot trust anything that
anyone says, on either side.
As a second task, I try to explain to the public what science is, and what
discipline scientists must apply for their theories and models to have the
power that people want from science. Your post (and your rejoinder) are
especially disturbing, as they show how poorly our schools are at educating
the public on what science is, and does. Many of us are taking our outreach
more seriously as a result.
Now to substance. To have the power that the public want from "scientific
statements", scientists must distinguish between fact and theory. Anyone who
uses the "different interpretation" of the word "fact" denies (for himself)
the power of science.
It not a "fact" that a solar eclipse will take place in Indonesia on March
9, 2016. It is a prediction based on a theory. The eclipse may not occur in
that place on that date; if so, then the theory is wrong. Your rhetorical
questions presume that your theories (celestial mechanics, astrophysics, or
climate models) could not possibly be wrong. This is how humans generally
approach their theories, about everything from religion to medicine. But it
is not science, and any scientists who confuses actual facts with
projections that assume their theories are correct compromises their ability
to see facts when they presents themselves. Most importantly the facts that
contradict their theory.
This is the case now with much of climate science. No, it is not a "fact"
that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 2035; this is the "crock" that
the IPCC finally retracted last week. The appearance of this non-fact in the
IPCC report indicates how the inability for IPCC modelers to distinguish
between actual facts and projections that presume that their theories are
true. Anyone who knows basic physics can do the calculation that shows that
it is impossible to get that much heat into the Himalayans in that amount of
time.
Nor is it a "fact" that the Arctic ice will be gone in 2040. The
qualification "if present trands continue" is a cheat. As is the claim that
it is all fine if one "provides the reference."
Especially when the reference is the video that you directed me to from
Peter Sinclair ("The Medieval Warming Crock" ). Briefly:
(a) the Medieval Warming clock did not come from the IPCC; it is based on an
analysis of Norther Hemisphere data.
(b) No a "larger view" does not change this view. Mann's "net" was not much
larger than the older dataset; it was still from the Northern Hemisphere.
(c) Mann did an incorrect renormalization of the data from 1000-1960 by
dividing it to get unit-less numbers by measurements since 1960. As any
statistician knows, doing this will always get a hockey stick, regardless of
what data are put in.
(d) The National Academy triangulated; Sinclair cherry picks the report to
claim that it supports exactly what it did NOT support, the
(e) The "hockey team" is multiple models all based on the same flawed
premises. It is like saying that because 100 copies of Friday's New York
Times agree, then its editorials must be right.
(f) The graph that he produces includes projected data after 2000, not
experimental data, even though experimental facts are known for this period.
This is the only reason why temperatures today appear higher than in the
Medieval.
In other words, Sinclair is so convinced that his theory is right because he
accepts theory-driven projections as "facts" that he is unable to see that
now that the facts are in hand that deny his theory, he continues to
represent projections as fact. Indeed, Jim Hansen predicted the curve that
Sinclair shows, but not the facts as subsequently measured (no run away
greenhouse, no horrible hurricanes, no further increase in temperature)
Hence my comment that the "preponderance of evidence says that Hansen is
wrong". And indeed, because you, Sinclair, and Jim think that "facts" are
projections that assume their theory is right, they do not reject the theory
when actual facts do not conform; they just discard the facts.
As for references, I went to www.igc.org to try to find out how someone
expounding publicly on climate science needs citations about what is taught
in paleoclimatology 101 about the Medieval Warm Period, who knows nothing
about the Minoan (but is nonetheless convinced that it is a local
phenomenon), and thinks that because a scientific establishment believes
something, it must be true. But the links did not work for me. [Wrong
link. Try www.igc.org/gadfly
EP] Read Bradley's basic textbook (Paleoclimatology, Second Edition:
Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary).
I attach a paper discussing the alternative view about the history of
CO2. Remember, Beck is also an advocate, so you need to look at the papers
he cites before drawing any conclusions. In fact, the difference in the
conclusions between Beck and the IPCC arises solely from which facts each
decide to discard. But it remains a fact agreed on by all sides (see
Copenhagen_Diagnosis for the IPCC concession on this) that CO2 rise follows
temperature rise; it does not precede it).
As for ulcers, you say that you do not know "anything at all about the
alleged acid/ulcer link that you cite", but you "doubt that the number of
scientists and the amount of research involved with the study of ulcers was
remotely comparable with that of climate science".
One wonders why someone who wants to make broad statements about how
reliable scientific "consensus" is to not know of the dozens of examples
like this, or the names "Prilosec" or other anti-acids that were the
products of billions of years of investment based on the consensus theory,
or the fact that Marshall self-infected himself to demonstrate the
establishment was wrong.
A simple google gives some places to start.
http://acronymrequired.com/2005/10/the-h-pylori-no.html
"But what does that prove?" you ask. It proves that people who do not
understand what a "fact" is can write nonsense.
As for your confidence that "scientific fraud and error are corrected by
more and better science", this is true, until the science become
politicized. It is not a fact that today's temperatures are inconsistently
high relative to those over the past 10,000 years. There is little evidence
that human CO2 emissions are causing current temperatures. There is no
consensus among climate scientists about these matters. There is good
evidence that CO2 rise has not historically caused temperature rises. These
are all facts.
But because of the politicization of science, non-scientists with blogs will
continue to do what you do, East Anglia scientists will continue to do what
they did, and climatology will not be fixed for many, many [years].
Steve Benner
Ernest Partridge Replies
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-informed reply to my essay and my
previous response.
Let's begin with my re-iteration of a foundational fact: I am not an
expert in climate science and I don't claim to be. Accordingly, I cannot
provide an informed critical response to much of your rebuttal. Your
refutation of the "common wisdom" held by climate scientists throughout
the world may be correct. I devoutly hope that it is, and would
enormously gratified if you and like-minded scientists were to prevail.
I am open to such an argument, however limited my ability to assess it.
However, from that limited point of view, I am unconvinced that the
consensus view is wrong, and I am somewhat impressed that it is, in
fact, a consensus arrived at through the research, both independent and
coordinated, of thousands of scientists of numerous cultural
backgrounds, throughout the world. I am not a climate scientist, so I
look to the opinion of those who are. Similarly, I am not an
astrophysicist, so I can add nothing to the dispute between steady-state
theorists such as the late Fred Hoyle, and "big-bang" theorists such as
Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg, etc. However, I can not ignore the
fact that over time the "big-bang" theory has prevailed among most
experts in the field.
While my knowledge is limited as to the content of climate science, as a
retired philosophy professor who has taught and published in the field
of the philosophy of science, I am not totally ignorant about "how
science works," and I resent your implication that I am somehow
ill-educated about the subject. While the philosophy of science is
not my specialty, I believe that I can claim some competence. (See my "Is Science Just Another Dogma?").
Accordingly, I am quite aware of the distinction between "facts" and
"theories," and thus of the fallacy of the shopworn creationist remark
that "evolution is not a fact, just a theory." (See my ""Creationism"
and the Devolution of the Intellect",
both of these written for a general audience and
therefore necessarily oversimplified and incomplete). I could go
on with an elaboration of the conceptual analysis of knowledge (as
"justified true belief"), the hypothetico-deductive model of scientific
inquiry, Karl Popper's account of scientific confirmation (as "failure
to disconfirm"), Quine's pragmatic verification theory ("Two Dogmas of
Empiricism") and all that. But I am not disposed right now to re-take my
Ph.D qualifying exams, and still less, I assume, are you inclined to
read them.
We begin with what seems to me to be a simple case of ambiguity. In
ordinary non-scientific usage, I submit, the word "fact" is correctly
used to refer to some virtually certain events in the future. Because I
was directing my essay to the general public, it was that sense that I
had in mind regarding eclipses, etc. So if you ask an
ordinary English-speaker (and I would include here most scientists) if
it is "a fact" that the sun will (appear to) rise tomorrow morning, I
dare say that almost all would reply that this is "a fact."
On the contrary, you interpret the word "fact" to
have no application to future events, however compellingly probable.
Very well. And if I accept your stipulation, then we have no argument:
it follows that there are no future facts. But this is an analytical
truth (i.e. "by definition") not an empirical truth.
As for my alleged assumption that "[my] theories ... could not possibly
be wrong," I refer you to my earlier reply: "in science there are, in
principle, no absolute certainties. Far from being a weakness of
science, this condition, called 'falliblism' and 'falsifiability' is
essential to science." So I plead not-guilty of your charge.
Furthermore, I did not claim, nor do I believe, that "the Himalayan
glaciers will be gone by 2035." However, there seems to be compelling
evidence that continental glaciers throughout the world (the Himalayas
and Alaska excepted) are shrinking.
Your careful critique of Peter Sinclair's "Medieval Warming Crock"
deserves the scrutiny of a climate expert, which I am not. You will have
to look elsewhere for a competent assessment. Again, I hope your
dismissal of the findings of the vast majority of climate scientists is
right, and I sincerely hope that you and like-minded scientists succeed
in proving it so. But at the moment, I am not hopeful.
My "expounding" on climate science was, as I clearly stated, the idle
speculation of an amateur. I lack the competence to advance the science
in any way. If climate scientists have in fact determined that Minoan
warm period was a world-wide phenomenon, then I stand corrected. It just
seemed improbable to me that data to support such a conclusion was
available about an event that took place more than three millennia ago.
But then, what do I know? However, I did not say (and wouldn't) that
"because a scientific establishment believes something, it must be
true." That assertion conveys a dogmatism that I do not embrace.
However, I believe that science, albeit fallible, has proven itself to
be the best source of knowledge about the natural world (which means
about reality -- I reject "supernatural knowledge"). Accordingly, I must
take scientific consensus very seriously, notwithstanding the fact that
occasionally in the past scientific consensus has been overturned -- by
scientific research, of course.
And so in closing, we return to the essential challenge of my essay:
Is the scientific affirmation
of anthropogenic global warming a "hoax," as Sen. Inhofe would have
us believe? Possibly. But to believe this one would also have to
believe either that (a) hundreds of millions of dollars of funded
and peer-reviewed research have systematically led to a false
conclusion, or (b) that thousands of scientists from around the
world are engaged in a giant conspiracy, or (c) that all these
scientists are simply fools. Sorry, but that is much more than I can
swallow.
You present a fourth possibility
(similar to the second, the "giant conspiracy"): that climate science
has "become politicized."
I confess that I am having difficulty identifying the "politics" that
you allude to -- a "politics" that somehow unites in a common cause and
motivates thousands of scientists, from diverse cultures and political
systems and ideologies from around the world. Are we to believe that a
home-grown American politics (presumably some form of Al Gore's liberal
environmentalism) has somehow captured an entire scientific community?
Is this a "politics" that guides and distorts the research of the
scientists who extract and examine ice-core samples from Greenland and
Antarctica? Does this "politics" cause scientists to mis-read
thermometers and other research instruments?
Sorry, but unless and until you identify this "politics" and give me
compelling evidence that it has captivated an entire scientific
discipline, then your throwaway line about "politicized science" will
remain "more than I can swallow."
On the contrary, "politics," along with massive economic interests, are
overwhelmingly on the side of the global warming skeptics, as the
captive corporate media has lavished time and attention to the skeptics
with the predictable result that public belief in and concern about
climate change has significantly abated.
Your skepticism is among the most responsible and informed that I have
encountered, and I must therefore take it seriously (notwithstanding
your distortion of my views and your false accusation of dogmatism).
Once again, I sincerely hope that you are right.
But from my limited perspective from outside the circle of climate
scientists, and my somewhat more competent standpoint as a student of
the philosophy of science, my vote remains with the consensus view.
For the sake of the future of human civilization, let us hope that they
are wrong. But if they are right, we must promptly and massively prepare
for the emergency that is ahead of us if we are to avoid global
catastrophe.
The US and Europe are having the coldest winter in decades. The Australian
drought is over and Arctic ice is near normal.
You can't maintain a lie by not reporting it.
Tony Heller
Ernest Partridge replies:
I've been trying to make sense of
"You can't maintain a lie by not reporting it." I give up! Didn't you
mean to say, "you can't maintain a lie by not reporting the truth""
Oh well...
As for that "coldest winter in decades," Sean Hannity has said this
repeatedly, typically without any citation whatever. What is your
source? By way of refutation, NOAA reports that 2009 was "the fifth
warmest January through October period." The Goddard Institute of Space
Studies agrees. (Citation:
http://mediamatters.org/print/research/200911250020). But what do
NOAA and GISS know? They're just scientists who collect publicly
monitored and replicable data. How can all this stand up against Sean
Hannity's butt?
As for Australia, no droughts are forever. This one has ended -- or so
you say (sans citation). If you are right (and why should I believe
you?), well, so what? I am more interested in global data and trends.
The alleged end of the Australian drought means nothing by itself.
"Arctic ice is near normal?" Flatly
false! In fact, "the
permanent Arctic Ice [is] vanishing." See also, Agence France Press:
"Arctic Ice Cap to Disappear by 2040." For still more
evidence,
see the satellite images here. So who are you goin' to believe? Sean
Hannity (etc) or your own lyin' eyes?
This is the difference between us:
I cite facts, grounded in scientific research, and my critics, like
yourself, rarely do so. Occasionally I slip up, and when my errors are
brought to my attention, I correct them. (See my reply to Steve Benner,
above).
Ernest Partridge
Ernest,
Here are few official government references which should help out.
According NCDC, 2008 and 2009 had normal temperatures.
December
was the 13th coldest on record.
According to NCDC, October was the third coldest on record. [Illustration,
the source is not cited]
According to NSIDC Arctic ice is essentially normal.
[Illustration, the source is not cited]
According to NSIDC, Antarctic ice has been increasing for 30 years, and
according NCEP, Europe is having record cold. [Illustration, the source is
not cited]
Tony Heller
Ernest Partridge Replies:
For the benefit of our readers, I should note that your e-mail contained
several tables, maps and other illustrations, which I cannot include
here.
Trouble is, that most of those graphics were uncited and in isolation
from the source texts. So they were meaningless by themselves. Since I
cannot relate them to a text or make sense of them out of context, they
are of no use in advancing your argument.
However, I believe that I can make a few general observations regarding
the "record cold" in Europe, the alleged increase in Antarctic ice, and
the "coldest December" (not "on record," but in the past 113 years, and
in the contiguous U.S., which you failed to mention), etc.
Climate change deniers seem to regard the global climate as similar to
the temperature inside a house. When the thermostat turns on, the
temperature of the entire house rises uniformly, and when the thermostat
shuts down, the house cools uniformly.
The global climate is not like this. It is, instead, a
system --
a complex entity made up of numerous interacting parts. Accordingly, one
can not generalize from one location (the contiguous U.S.) or a brief
interval of time (December, 2009) to the entire planetary climate
system. Global warming can and does result in local cooling. When
records are collected and collated from around the world, the conclusion
remains firm: this past decade was the warmest on record, containing
four of the warmest years on record.
Case in point: Last week, southern California suffered its most severe
storm in years. It lasted a full week, and now, outside my window at my
mountain home in the San Bernardino mountains (elevation, 5000 ft), I
see an accumulation of 18 inches of snow. Does this refute global
warming? Quite the contrary. The storm was a result of an "El Nino"
event, which in turn is caused by an unusual warming of the Pacific
Ocean. Thus, that snow outside is quite possibly the result of global
warming.
Similarly, the alleged increase in Antarctic snow pack. I've read about
this, and am inclined to believe that it is a fact. But what is the
cause? Probably increased precipitation on the Antarctic continent, due
again to an increase in ocean temperature. Missing from your account are
the abundantly documented and thus undeniable facts that the ice shelves
along the edge of the continent are disintegrating (cf. the satellite
photos) and that the Antarctic glaciers are accelerating. Similarly,
there is no doubt that the Greenland ice shield is shrinking as the
glaciers there accelerate. And throughout the world,
continental glaciers
are shrinking "at historic rates."
You quote Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado:
Well I have my own article on
where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder
where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days
on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was
below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records
for these days by 10F.
Trenberth knows full well that two
cold days in in Boulder tells us nothing about the state of the
planetary climate system. He is only repeating a hackneyed joke that I
often heard from climate scientists during my two years as an NSF
researcher in Boulder: on an unseasonably cold day, "well, so much for
global warming!" Just a joke, dammit!
As Aristotle famously remarked, one swallow does not make a summer. Nor
does a cold month in one locality refute the findings of thousands of
climatologists throughout the world.
|
