Those following the waning “debate” over anthropogenic global warming (AGW) will have noticed a change in its flavor over the last two years. 2005 was the year in which the remaining few credible scientific arguments against global warming in general were eliminated (see this post). Now, even the skeptics, or at least the honest ones, admit the warming is real. The last bastion of true skepticism lies in arguments based on solar forcing of climate, which Real Climate has been methodically debunking.
Indeed we have reached a point at which even most politicians, Sen. Imhoffe excluded, agree that global warming is probably human-induced. That, in itself, is a tremendous triumph for science. There are those who will argue that it’s too soon for scientists to celebrate, but I’m willing to pop the cork a little earlier than some. Nevertheless, I think we’ll see a very large number of books published examining just why it was so hard for scientists to convince the public and policymakers of their conclusions. That is partly the theme of Al Gore’s new book, and of the talk he gave last December at the annual gathering of the American Geophysical Union. But Gore is still on the front lines, so to speak, leading the charge to eradicate the deeply entrenched public skepticism of AGW. Unfortunately, that public skepticism is still being fueled by popular anti-science works like Bethell’s PIG Guide to Science that, while long discredited, still remain on bookshelves.
But this blog is mostly about looking forward, and the trend I see is that the head of the AGW skepticism movement has long been severed, the body just hasn’t found out yet. There is one aspect of the entire phony debate that bothers me the most, and its one that will very likely survive long after AGW is publicly accepted. How is it that the public came to so easily discard the work of so many scientists?
There exists the perception that AGW is somehow the OPINION of scientists, as opposed to the CONCLUSION. Virtually everyone has an opinion about AGW, and I would argue that most of those opinions are motivated by ideology rather than deductive reasoning. After all, how many of us have personally examined so much of the global warming evidence that we could confidently conclude anything one way or the other? (There are, of course, arguments about global warming that are very simple to construct, and inescapably true, mostly related to greenhouse gases. However strong an argument, GHG theory is not sufficient to fully address AGW skeptics because of the complexities of the Earth’s systems). I won’t go into the ideologies behind the public AGW debate, because I think we’re all pretty much familiar with them. Instead I want to ask why it is that the public so fundamentally misunderstands not just the scientific method, and why an opinion differs from a conclusion, but the work of scientists as well.
Two Great Misconceptions
Two years ago, Michael Crichton wrote a book about how scientists made up global warming to get grant funding. This idea, now long dead, struck scientists as hilarious but made sense to some in the public. After all, we see examples of conflict of interest every week in the public sphere, why should scientists be immune? What the grant-funding argument misses is that scientists don’t have a vested interest in the outcome of their research on AGW, but rather in the impact of the outcome. Scientists achieve renown not by toeing some non-existent party line, but instead by producing work so remarkable that others take notice. Nothing would get notice faster for a young scientists than showing that everyone is wrong about global warming, and I’m willing to wager that many hundreds of brilliant young scientists have looked at the data with just such a conclusion in mind. But here we are, the debate is long over, and AGW still stands.
An astute determined skeptic will now proceed to attack the peer-review system for not allowing the anti-AGW evidence to be published. The common public belief is that scientific journals regularly screen submissions on the conclusions presented in those papers. We are told to believe that journals have an ideological position to defend, and editors turn away controversial but otherwise sound papers that would disagree with that ideology. But this simply is not true. Peer-reviewed journals have no financial interest in producing papers that are ideologically sound but non-controversial, indeed the exact opposite is true. Journals are ranked based on their impact factor, which is a measure of how many times each published article is cited by others, and for how many years new citations continue to roll in. The best way to get a high impact factor is to publish work that challenges the status-quo by presenting sound evidence that overturns an existing theory. Every single journal on the planet would salivate at the chance of publishing work that soundly refuted AGW. But again, here we are, the debate is long over, and AGW still stands.
Scientists and scientific journals have every interest in producing and publishing work that refutes AGW theory. But the balance continues to tip more in favor of AGW, with every major work questioning the theory now either refuted or incorporated into the theory itself. In order to believe that the thousands of brilliant and motivated scientists and hundreds of for-profit journals would ignore evidence against AGW, one would have to believe that they ALL act against their own financial and ethical interests in favor of some vague ideological position. One would have to believe that there exists a massive cabal of technicians, labs, and government funding agencies around the planet all somehow convinced that misleading the public about AGW is the right thing to do.
If you asked most ordinary folks if they believe that such a conspiracy exists, they answers would range from a resounding “no” to a firm “probably not”. But you see, most of the public just hasn’t thought through this whole issue. They really have no idea what motivates most scientists, and have no understanding of how scientific work is funded. They don’t understand the peer-review process, or the arcane network of journals that somehow disseminates scientific findings.
Failures of Media, and Education
The public attempts to understand the science behind controversial issues in terms of a debate, and with a “we report you decide” mentality dominating mass media, the lay public is asked to reach conclusions on extremely complicated issues with very little background knowledge. The anti-AGW political crowd, pushing their ideological agenda, inject sound-bite arguments and attempt to muddy the waters with sciency-sounding questions about work published decades ago. To further push their point, the anti-AGW crowd has sought to discredit the very scientists themselves. This tactic has been successful with a public so fully insulated from the practice and people of science. Rigorous science journalism is what’s needed to clear the air, but even there the accusation of bias can be so stinging that journalists themselves give greater credence to anti-AGW theories and enhance the appearance of debate.
It isn’t the science journalism that will have convinced the public in the case of AGW. It’s the IPCC. It’s documentarians showing people the effects of global warming while accompanying scientists on their field expeditions. Finally, its the huge mass of evidence amassed by scientists that has simply buried all opposition. Journalism has failed us here, it scientists themselves who have become communicators. Scientists have risen to combat disinformation in every form of media. If public mistrust of the scientific process is the dark cloud that remains after AGW is settled, then it is the new high-profile communicator-scientists that line that cloud with silver.
Blogs written by scientists, shows produced by or in concert with scientists, and high-profile public figures like James Hansen have a unique opportunity here. They can use their new voice to not just influence the AGW debate, but to reach an audience long deaf to the world of science. They can crumble the illusion of the ivory tower, and show the public what’s beneath the white labcoat. If they continue to do so, popular culture will follow. Science in general could become as popular on primetime television as forensic scientists or medical doctors are today.
We must still ask how the public became so ill-informed. Mass media is not the only culprit. Education has surely failed us here too. Science education in most public schools is a gross abomination. Beginning in the earliest grades, subjects are taught in a completely illogical order. Gee-whiz experiments are thrown at students in a vain attempt to get them excited about it, instead of instilling a basic understanding of the physical law that underlies the universe. If math were taught like science, instead of starting with basic addition students would learn about nifty things like magic squares and fibonacci sequences. Once the shine wears off dissecting pig fetuses, many students logically conclude that science is either weird or irrelevant–not because it is either of those things, but because it was taught to them so backwards that they cannot make any of the important connections that truly excite young learners. For more on my ideas about reforming science education, read my post about the Lego Method. We have qualified teachers, we just have to give them sound curricula.
The AGW debate is by no means the only place where the combination of better communication and better fundamental education would go a long way. I’m sure that biologists would like to see a bit less ideological thinking applied to evolution as well. That is a MUCH tougher nut to crack, because at least global warming is not fundamentally at odds with the contention of any interpretation of religious texts. To really make progress in that debate, and to prevent others, we need to see more scientists directly communicating with the public about themselves and their work, and we desperately need science education reforms.
I’m surprised you say that the solar theories have been debunked: From what I’ve been seeing, there’s been a recent resurgence in the solar based warming theories following a couple of papers that lended a lot of credibility to the theory. The lack of skepticism that I’ve heard in many areas seems more due to the holding of breath than anything else: the sun just ended it’s 11 year cycle (which was a particularly active cycle, also), and so in the next year or two we’re going to start seeing which theory is more relevant (they could both be correct). One thing the solar people have in their favor: the Southern Hemisphere’s temperature has gone down over the past year, as has the past couple seasons of most of the Northern hemisphere (although some specific months have been warmer).
taoist,
I don’t mean to suggest that solar is not playing a forcing role, but rather that role is small compared to the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If this is something you’re interested in, visit realclimate.org. It includes a group of top-flight climate scientists, who also happen to be excellent communicators, who address the details of both AGW skepticism and advocacy in great deal. Recently, they’ve seriously addressed the solar forcing issue, and found that it does not appear to be the cause of most of the observed warming trend.
A few more years’ worth of data will always provide more answers. And, year-to-year or month-to-month anomalies will be observed. The inescapable fact here is that the last decade has been the warmest we’ve seen since records have been kept. Last winter was one of the Northern hemisphere’s warmest on record. Last year was one of the warmest globally ever recorded.
You’re a critical thinker, and that’s why I appreciate your comments so much. But here, it’s time to start debating not whether AGW is real, because it is. Instead, we need to talk about mitigation and adaptation. How do we minimize damage–that’s the debate to have. Whether that damage is ecological, economical, or cultural, and how much damage is acceptable; there’s plenty of room for ideological disagreement.
Dear Mr. Kendall,
As a critical thinker, I have just a few questions:
Isn’t it true that there has been extreme examples of global climate changes - from extreme hot to extreme cold - in various periods of Earth history when humans were absent?
If the solar forcing issue has no real planetary impact, why are Mars, Pluto, and the rest of the planets and moons in the solar system experincing their own global climate changes towards the warm end?
Isn’t it true that scientific concensus has a poor track record? For example, it was standard scientific belief only a century ago that we wouldn’t be able to determine the chemical makeup of stars.
Why do you say that a few more years worth of data will provide the answers? If global warming is happening, then you would have the data to change it.
In the 1970s, the fear was global cooling. Now it’s global warming. Isn’t it true that throughout Earth’s history, shorelines and weather have changed?
Respectfully Submitted,
Joseph Baneth Allen
Mr. Allen,
Thanks for reading! To address your questions:
1) There are examples of global extremes of cooling and warming throughout Earth’s history. The key to understanding our current situation in the geological context is to understand that we are in a period of glaciation. Without humans here, we would be continuing a declining temperature trend because the Earth is currently in a period of decreasing solar forcing over a several thousand year timescale. There are theories of a “snowball Earth” where the entire planet was covered in ice. There were also times when the poles had sea temperatures no colder than 10-20 degrees above freezing. But, these conditions were experienced during periods of very different atmospheric composition, solar radiation output, or continental alignment, and thus very different “natural” greenhouse effects and weather/ocean circulation of global heat.
There is much more to say about this topic, but suffice to say that we must compare our current situation with the prevalent conditions over the last million years or so to remove other complicating geologic factors. If one does that, we see that we are in a period of unprecedented greenhouse gas levels and nearly unprecedented global temperatures.
2)Solar forcing has a huge impact on our climate. It is what keeps our planet warm, and drives nearly all known biological energy cycles and global dynamism. Solar forcing as an agent of short-term climate change is likely a bit-player, however. For much more on this topic, visit realclimate.org.
As for whether Mars, Venus, or whatever else is in a warm period, that is completely coincidental. The Sun’s output is higher than it’s ever been, in a long-term average sense. But, what drives the climate cycles on other terrestrial planets is their distance from the Sun in their orbits, relative to the mean orbital distance. To some extent, for planets like Mars, the changes in the obliquity, or axial tilt, are also a significant factor. We cannot simply look to our planetary neighbors and naively ascribe changes seen there to changes seen here. There are simply far too many factors to do that over very short (100s of years) time periods.
3) Scientific consensus has an excellent track record. The consensus view of the Solar mechanics never truly existed, in the example you mention. Very few solid consensus examples that subsequently were disproved actually occurred. The “ether” theory was always just a theory, and could not explain much at all about orbital motions. The “earth was flat” consensus never really existed, and if it was common knowledge at some time, there was no dedicated science profession then. There are many other examples as well that suggest that viewing scientific consensus as innately fallible is overly pessimistic.
That said, consensus itself is nothing to believe if not for a consensus of evidence. That is where the global warming consensus is nigh unassailable. There are few other focus areas of scientific research, save perhaps Darwinian evolution, that have a larger body of supporting evidence. Thousands upon thousands of scientists have collected hard data for decades, and the results of examining that enormous pile of evidence nearly always fall in favor of the anthropogenic global warming mechanism.
4) A few years’ worth more data will answer a lot of “questions” put forward by global warming critics because we are in the midst of that very change. Just as the portrait a sketch artist draws at first looks like nothing more than a few abstract geometrical constructions, the first years’ and decades’ data about global warming was suggestive at best. But, as time goes by, the gaps in data are gradually filled, and the picture takes its final form. We are learning a lot very quickly, particularly about the so-called “tipping point” mechanisms that may lead to feedback-induced rapid climate change. Another reason that a few years will answer many questions is that there are hundreds of data-collection efforts that will offer new insights into global warming science.
5) The whole global cooling myth is way overblown. There were very few academic papers published about the idea. It was a theory proposed by a few groups supported by very little data. It is much more prominent now than it ever was supposed to have been in the 1970s. The myth of the global cooling consensus has been publicized by global warming denialists to try and add meat to their meager arguments.
Mr. Allen, there are many ways to attack any theory. But, in the face of overwhelming evidence in favor of the anthropogenic global warming theory, denialists must offer similarly convincing evidence in their favor. They have not done so. They focus on trying to poke holes in individual studies, which is always possible because studies are by their very nature limited datasets. Denialists argue out of ignorance, that is, we do not understand fully what is happening, therefore we cannot say what is causing it definitively. There is no absolute knowledge that man may possess, he must be guided instead by the most convincing argument–by the argument that is most convincingly supported by data.
Dear Mr. Kendall,
Actually, the idea of global cooling goes much farther back than the 1970s. A review of national and international newspapers from 1901 - the New York Times for example - shows that the idea of global cooling was an idea being seriously discussed by the eminent scientists of that time.
I am also curious as to how you define “overblown.” Does that include the cover stories of global cooling in national magazines like NewsWeek and Time during the 1970s where prominent scientists are quoted about global cooling?
Using the term “Denialists” to promote a scientific cause is interesting because you’re using a term usually reserved for people who deny the Holocaust. What happens if you’re wrong?
Dear Mr. Kendall,
I don’t want to be characterized as a denialist or by some other polarizing term. They do not belong in an honest discussion about a theory being proposed about global warming.
First of all, there has been a numerous warming and cooling periods throughout the history of earth. They have occurred naturally and will continue to occur in the future. I think it is a fair assumption that the solar activity has an overwhelming impact on the earth. After all, if you reduce solar activity the life on earth can cease to exist. It is a conjecture to say that the solar activity on a “short term” basis does not have an impact on the earth’s response. Apart from the 11 year cyclical sun spot activity (actually a 22 year cycle) there has been correlation of sun spot minimums to cooling periods. Some of those cycle had lasted for decades. The Maunder minimum that lasted from 1645 to 1715 seems to correlate with the mini-ice age that was recorded then, obviously without the so-called AGW of recent origin. Those cycles will continue to happen and will continue to impact the earth’s climate. By the way, our understanding of the actual magnitude of radiative forcing of sun spots is sketchy at best. In other words, our understanding of the sunspot is still developing.
Next, we need to understand the precession of the earth. It is not a fixed entity. It has a variation and its relationship to the earth’s climate is not well understood either. Why is that important? It is important because it will affect the convective forces at both the ocean level (75% of earth) as well as atmospheric interaction.
The point is that one needs to establish causality first before affirming through statistical sampling correlation. If y= F(x1,x2,…..xn) plus all the second and third order interactions, then your model need to establish all the coefficients associated with each of the variables. If you set aside AGW for the moment, your model should be able to predict in a backward sense, previously occurred global cooling and warming. Then only, you can claim validity of AGW.
Last year, I went to Alaska to see the glaciers there. Did you know that the glacier field at Bartlett Cove is beginning to build back up again from 1925 when it was at is lowest point. When the explorer Vancouver went to Bartlett cove went there it was all ice field. When John Muir visited it some seventy years later, the glacier had retreated about 60 miles!. It reached its farthest point in 1925.
As far as CO2 emissions are concerned, mammals contribute to CO2. In addition, in temperate climate, the vegetation that reverses that process are absent anywhere from 3 months to 6 months. In the US, the CO2 level must shoot up since one of the recycling mechanism is withdrawn. What is the overall (surface to altitude) change in CO2 as a result of that change?
In places like North Dakota and in Siberia, archaeological discoveries have shown evidence of herbivorous mastodons. Therefore, one can reasonably deduce that the climate must have been conducive for year-round vegetation. How did that occur at those latitudes? It is also interesting to note that commercial hot house growers pump CO2 to levels over 1000ppm for vigorous growth. The averaged levels of atmospheric CO2 have been from about 330 ppm to the current level of about 375ppm. My own belief (not proven at all) is that the plants need certain level of CO2 to sustain and productive. It is not clear what level that would be and how we fit in on that basis. In addition, it is also not clear how the large bodies of water (Oceans) deal with CO2 recycling.
I am not against AGW but that I don’t believe that our current modeling has good enough precision to segregate its effect so clearly. Heck, the current weather prediction model is not accurate at all. Computer modeling is great but they still rely on the basic functions and their weight in this complex field.
I am an engineer by trade. I can assure you some of the dynamic modeling that we use on structures and machinery analysis is not accurate at all as precision depends on accounting for all factors (reducing assumptions)and the models become extremely complex. That is why I am skeptical! Just don’t call me names and categorize as such tactics merely tells me that the theory and conclusions proposed don’t have confidence behind them.
Thanks for your patience,
Art
I am happy to find a blog so devoted to renewable energies. Personally, I place high hopes on the prospects of renewables to decentralise the economics of energy, and hopefully economics in general. Placing more emphasis on the local, and less on the global.
As for consensus warming theory, current trends are in fact going in exactly the opposite direction as what you imply in your posting.
It is easier to be a believer in an orthodoxy such as consensus warming orthodoxy, than a heretic. A heretic risks much by distancing himself from the mass of believers. In numbers there is protection and strength. On your own, you risk loss of funding, denial of tenure, being demonised by your intellectual inferiors who are raking in the grants, etc. etc.
As a believer, one must nor actually know anything about the topic other than the authority upon which one places his trust. For almost all believers, belief is a subconscious appeal to authority. It is the lazy man’s approach to knowledge. Let someone else do your thinking for you.
I am not saying this is your approach, by any means. Perhaps you know more than what your are saying, about the scientific basis of climate? Appeal to authority is working less and less well these days.
I have to agree with the last posters. When you make models that emulate variables that were obtained from other models that emulate variables that were obtained… etc, the prospect for error is astounding, and yet, GW is considered a “theory”, when I see nothing but a fancy computer game for extremely geek people. I am stretching here, but to consider GW a “closed deal”, you would have to have empirical data. And when GW theory doesn’t even explain last century’s temperature data, one begins to get skeptical to its real power of explaining the next.
The problem here is that even if GW is real, the true cost of taking out CO2 of the global economy is simply forbidding. 7 billion people would be put on poverty again. Riots. Anger. Wars would restart. Famine would kill millions.
But hey, we would have prevented the world to have warmed half a degree, we should cheer that while we have a good dinner of cold roots!
40 years ago we had a shot, by building nukes. But alas, the greenistas found it was easier to mob the nuke scientists and accept the “alternatives” being the big alternative chosen thereafter named with a “C” and ending with “OAL”, what a shot in the foot!
Now deal with it. Personally speaking I even think that we’re in for another little ice age, which, hahum, will be considerably worse than global warming. But hey, that’s just me. And if you check Holocene’s timeline, we’re due to the next impending true ice age. All things considered, I find it good a little warming.
Dear Mr. Kendall,
thank you for your interesting and valuable contribution. In my opinion, the debate about whether human activities are responsible for global warming or not, is absolete and doesn’t help us to recon where the real problem is, namely, that finite sources can’t support a steady growth.
Pollution is an ovious side-effect and nobody will deny its harmful impact on our environment - except politicians with obvious interests in money and power.
What we have to change is our habits and the approach, that all of earths resources are infinite. Talking about nuclear power as an alternative to oil shows the inability of the “experts” to get this right.
We must overcome the childish idea of an ever-growing economy. We’ve already reached the point where the growth rate isn’t maintainable and there is still some “experts” talking about further growth.
No matter how big the ship and fishing-nets would be, when there is no fish, you can’t catch any. For too long natural capital (air, water, trees, soil, etc.) has been confused with artificial capital (money). It’s time to change this view. The solutions will come anyway. If we don’t want to choose our options, nature will choose hers.