Apparently Sarah Palin is worried that gas prices will reach $4/gallon. Doesn’t she have anything else to worry about?
Gas prices: We’re number one!
March 26, 2011There are at least as many walks as talks
March 24, 2011In the previous thread a discussion ensued about how to gauge someone’s credibility. Tom Fuller said that a
message needs to be evaluated by the normal criteria we use for messaging.
1. Is the message credible and coherent?
2. Are the messengers credible and coherent?
3. Are the actions of those who preach and believe the message consistent with the implications of their message.
This was echoed by Paul Kelly. Especially the third point got a lot of discussion. Steve Fitzpatrick had brought up that issue as well:
anybody who believes that CO2 driven warming presents a serious threat to humanity ought not be regularly jetting off (with enormous CO2 emissions!) to exotic destinations like Tahiti for climate science conferences. Climate scientists who want their (un-welcomed) message of extreme future warming to be well received must be (and must be perceived as) more pure than Ceasar’s wife.
To which I replied:
The physics of radiative transfer and feedbacks are not the least dependent on whether climate scientists fly to Tahiti or not.
If you can only address a problem when you’re pure as the driven snow, than no problem will ever be addressed.
and:
The more complex the chain of cause and effect, the more more complex the third point [walking the walk] becomes. If someone says that too much coffee is bad for you, but in the meantime downs 8 cups a day, I guess he can say he’s addicted (and perhaps he is). His message will however lose credibility indeed. But would you care to venture a guess how many people drink more coffee than they think is good for them? People don’t always act in accordance to what they (think they) know. It seems a little too easy to dismiss someone’s message because they too possess that very human trait. And then I’m only talking about drinking coffee. In a complex area such as climate change, people have vastly different perceptions on how it should be tackled and on their own role in that. Projecting how the messenger should behave, and then dismissing them because they don’t, is sometimes a little too convenient of an excuse to dismiss the message I think.
The fact is that taking the message and really following up on it, may well push you into the area of “activism”, which then becomes an easy way to attack the message and the messenger itself. Good examples are the attacks on Al Gore for investing in sustainable energy and doing CO2 trading, and those on Jim Hansen for demonstrating against coal mining.
I.e. communicators are damned if they do and damned if they don’t walk the walk. It’s so easy to condemn them for not walking the walk you had in mind. And if they walk too much, they’re to be dismissed as “activists”.
Willard extends my coffee analogy to include Irish coffee:
The preach what you teach or the walk and talk argument pertains to public relations, not communication per se. When an alcoholic says to me that alcohol can be bad for you, I tend to believe that person. But I am not sure I would take an intemperate drinker for my nation-wide week of soberness.
the central message of the “climate consensus” is that AGW is real, that the consequences are likely to be serious and it needs to be addressed. The extent to which this means we have to change the way we live is more debatable, there really is no consensus about the specific policies which are required in order to combat AGW
Even people who agree on the science and on the needs to address AGW, can disagree vehemently about *how* to address it. That is actually the discussion we should be having in society.
Andrew on the wider context of credibility and behaviour:
In any debate on a question of science the messengers should surely be judged primarily on the extent to which they can support their arguments with references to established science – that is what gives the message credibility and coherence. (…)
And of course scientists are not the only messengers, there are others (such as yourself) and their credibility should equally be held up to scrutiny. (…) It is often suggested that the whole furore, controversy etc around the subject of AGW is down to the actions of climate scientists and others who advocate action on AGW as if the “skeptics” have no responsibility for the situation or no agenda of their own. This is nonsense – they have an active roll in this saga and they have to accept responsibility for their actions. Even if they have an electric car.
If someone is claiming that as an individual I should be taking specific actions then obviously I would expect them to do the same, but otherwise I’m really not interested in examining the lifestyles of those who support action on AGW.
Yes, we can (communicate)!
March 14, 2011And now it’s time for something uplifting:
‘Of course scientists can communicate’ (Tim Radord’s Nature column)
there are reasons why scientists, in particular, should be and often are good communicators. One is that most scientists start with the engaging quality of enthusiasm. (…)
Enthusiasm is infectious, but to command an audience of readers, scientists should exploit their other natural gifts. One of these is training in clarity. Another is training in observation. And a third is knowledge. (…)
thoughts have value only when expressed, and the more clearly they are expressed, the greater their potential value. (…)
The problems for the scientist as a public communicator start with academic publishing: the language, form and conventions of the published scientific paper could almost have been devised to conceal information. (…) So to be effective communicators, scientists have to learn to stand back from their own work and see it as strangers might do. (…)
And while we have our ducks in a row, let me invoke the canard that scientists occasionally propagate about the media: that it does not appreciate scientific uncertainty. That one is especially irritating. It seems to say “I, as a scientist, wish to have it both ways. I want the privilege of knowing better than you, and the indulgence of being wrong without guilt, because science, don’t you see, is really about uncertainty.” To which the foolish answer might be “In which case, why should we listen?” But alas, people in any case listen selectively, even to the best communicators, which might be why so many Americans think Darwin’s theory of evolution is “only a theory”. Scientists are not the only people to blame for a problem in communication.
But…
If large proportions of the public believe demonstrably silly things (such as young earth creationism or that the earth is the centre of the universe or that AGW is not happening*), perhaps that’s a sign that there’s something in human nature that makes them prone to believing silly (though comfortable) things? Humans may have big brains, but we’re by and large not very good at intuitively understanding things that we can’t directly observe (that probably wasn’t a highly needed survival skill during our evolution). Or is it something in our culture? Or the education system? Or all of the above?
The problem with many of these complex questions is that the most boring and least useful answer is usually the right one: All of the above…
The real issue is perhaps not so much how to improve the journalists’ or scientists’ communication, but rather how to depoliticize the topic of climate change. Picked up at Yulsman’s,
John Fleck:
The impediments imposed by the way audiences filter what we say based on political belief systems means that our [journalists] work can only effect things at the margins.
(the same can of course be said for scientists’ communication efforts)
Andy:
(People’s) beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity.
The good news is, the climate debate hasn’t always been as politicized as it is now:
Polls show that as late as 1997, Republicans and Democrats had virtually indistinguishable views on the science of global warming. But an aggressive campaign by the fossil fuel industry and conservative think tanks to cast doubt about the scientific evidence that human activity is warming the planet changed that. Today, public understanding of climate science reflects a deep division along partisan lines.
Undoing that division is key. I found Jonathan Adler’s thoughts interesting and thought provoking (mostly so for libertarians) in that respect.
*) Even though all of these examples taken as absolutes are rather silly/unlikely, I don’t mean to imply absolute equivalence between these examples. Jeez, since when are disclaimers needed on blogs?
Open thread March 2011
March 10, 2011For discussions that are off topic on the topical posts.
E.g. the resurfaced allegations of Wahl and Mann. I agree with RC’s take:
That this inconvenient fact [that MM05 made no substantial difference to the MBH reconstruction] has driven hundreds of blog posts, dozens of fevered accusations, a basket load of FOI requests, and stoked multiple fires of manufactured outrage is far more a testimony to personal obsession, rather than to its intrinsic importance.
It’s kind of cynical that the person at the centre stage of this obsession was invited to a “reconcilliation” workshop.
Or any other climate topic of interest.
Science communication: Who is responsible (for its failing)?
March 9, 2011There’s a semi-continuous argument going on about who’s to blame for the lack of public understanding about climate change. I’ve discussed the communication conundrum a few times as well, and assigned blame to various quarters, e.g
The media:
The popular media often paint a false picture of the scientific debate by giving the tiny minority viewpoints equal footing as the consensus viewpoints.
Most scientists are very bad at talking about their scientific field in plain, understandable language.
Though of course both statements in isolation miss the broader point, which is that
there are weaknesses in all parts of the chain that hamper the communication and use of climate science: A lack of good communication by scientists, a lack of scientific literacy amongst the public, the education system, the political system, a lack of fact-checking by the media, disinformation by vested interests, etc.
Enough self-quotation. Discussions are raging at Keith’s, Eli’s (check out John Fleck’s comments), mt’s, Stoat, with very interesting discussions in the comments sections.
Eli:
John, tell your friends to get off the all scientists are lousy communicators and it’s their fault that the science is not being communicated kick and maybe we can talk.
To which many journalists would understandably reply: Exchange “scientists” by “journalists” as well while you’re at it. And both would be right.
John Fleck points out that, apart from egregious examples that exist e.g. in the opinionsphere journalism,
the data would suggest that journalists across the major press publications in the area I deal with most closely – climate change – are doing a creditable job.
Max Boykoff, now at the University of Colorado, has done the most work on this. His most recent analysis of newspaper coverage of climate change found that the British tabloid press “significantly diverged from the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change,” but that what Boykoff calls the “prestige press” (NY Times, Guardian, LA Times, Washington Post, etc.) pretty much gets the story right. Despite the widespread belief in a “false balance” problem, Boykoff’s most recent data showed a steady decline in the problem, such that in 2006 (the most recent year for which he’s got data, sadly), just 3 percent of the US and UK stories he surveyed did the “false balance” thing.
William puts the lion’s share of responsibility with the public:
But if the public wanted intelligently written journalism that actually explored issues carefully, they would get it. Alas (as far as I can tell), most of them want entertainment, but they want to feel good about watching it, so they want to pretend they are watching news, so effectively they are asking to be lied to. And that is what they get.
There’s something to that. Over the years, even the evening news and the weather forecast have changed in its narrative and appearance so as to be more about entertainment than about information. Election debates. Blogs. People want entertainment and they want it now. Gimme a quick fix, quick. Next, what’s next? There’s no time for learning or reflection.
Jonathan Gilligan has a similar line of thought as William, putting the responsibility on the public to consume the information they chose to:
There are lots of great books by scientists and journalists, so why do we assume that deadline journalism is so much more important than books for getting accurate and clear information to the public?
Yes, there’s bad journalism and there are bad books, but there are also excellent examples of both and if we can’t trust the general public to figure out what’s trustworthy, then it’s game over for democracy regardless what we do for the environment.
While rather gloomy in its ending, I think Gilligan is right that news journalism (interesting discussion on that thread, esp. the back and forth between Gilligan, Kloor and Tobis) isn’t the type of medium that we can expect to cover slowly unraveling stories in any depth. But even deadline news journalism is usually put in a certain context, where such issues can be touched upon. And there’s also background journalism, science journalism, and other kinds of communication (by scientists, journalists or whomever) that could rise to the occasion.
Which gets us to the point that it’s really about. Quoting mt:
the real question isn’t “whose fault?” It’s “what now?”
Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
February 22, 2011(This is also featured as a guest post on Skeptical Science)
The greatest source of uncertainty in understanding climate change is arguably due to the role of aerosols and clouds. This uncertainty offers fertile ground for contrarians to imply that future global warming will be much less than commonly thought. However, some (e.g. Lindzen) do so by claiming that aerosol forcing is overestimated, while others (e.g. the NIPCC) by claiming that aerosol forcing is underestimated. Even so, they still arrive at the same conclusion…
Let’s have a look at their respective arguments. Below is a figure showing the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases and from aerosols, as compared to pre-industrial times. The solid red curve gives the net forcing from these two factors. The wide range of possible values is primarily due to the uncertainty in aerosol forcing (blue dotted line).
The greenhouse gas forcing (dashed red curve) is relatively well known, but the aerosol forcing (dashed blue curve) is not. The resulting net anthropogenic forcing (red solid curve) is not well constrained. The height of the curve gives the relative probability of the associated value, i.e. the net climate forcing is probably between 1 and 2 W/m2, but could be anywhere between 0 and 3 W/m2. (From IPCC, 2007, Fig 2.20)
NIPCC’s argument
The NIPCC report (a skeptical document, edited by Craig Idso and Fred Singer, made to resemble the IPCC report) says:
“The IPCC dramatically underestimates the total cooling effect of aerosols.”
They hypothesize that natural emissions of aerosol precursors will increase in a warming climate, causing a negative feedback so as to dampen the warming. Examples of such gaseous aerosol precursors are dimethyl sulfide (DMS) emitted by plankton or iodocompounds created by marine algae. They use these putative negative feedbacks to claim that
“model-derived sensitivity is too large and feedbacks in the climate system reduce it to values that are an order of magnitude smaller.”
Rebuttal
These are intriguing processes (the “CLAW hypothesis” first got me interested in aerosols, when I assisted with DMS measurements on some remote Scottish islands), but their significance on a global scale is ambiguous and highly uncertain. As a review article about the DMS-climate link says:
“Determining the strength and even the direction, positive or negative, of the feedbacks in the CLAW hypothesis has proved one of the most challenging aspects of research into the role of the sulfur cycle on climate modification.”
The NIPCC report exaggerates the uncertainty in climate science, but seems to put a lot of faith in elusive and hardly quantified processes such as natural aerosol feedbacks coming to our rescue.
Lindzen’s argument
On to Lindzen:
“The greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (…) which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far (…).”
Lindzen again (E&E 2007):
“How then, can it be claimed that models are replicating the observed warming? Two matters are invoked.”
The “two matters” he refers to are aerosol cooling and thermal inertia from the oceans (a.k.a. “warming in the pipeline”). He then proceeds to argue that both of these factors are much smaller than generally thought, perhaps even zero. E.g. on aerosols, Lindzen writes:
“a recent paper by Ramanathan et al (2007) suggests that the warming effect of aerosols may dominate – implying that the sign of the aerosol effect is in question.”
By downplaying the importance of these two factors, Lindzen argues that the observed warming implies a small climate sensitivity. The same line of argument is also used by Dutch journalist Marcel Crok, who writes in his recent book (in Dutch, my translation):
aerosols probably cool much less than commonly thought
Rebuttal
While it is true that aerosols can warm and cool the climate (by absorption and reflection of solar radiation, respectively, besides influencing cloud properties), most evidence suggests that globally, cooling is dominant. Whereas Ramanthan et al (2007) don’t quantify the net aerosol effect (in contrast to Lindzen’s implicit claim), Ramanathan and Carmichael (2008) (quoted by Crok) do. They estimate both the warming ánd cooling effects to be stronger than most other estimates, but the net forcing (-1.4 W/m2) is right in line with (even a little stronger than) the IPCC estimate (see the above figure). Taking into account realistic estimates of aerosol forcing and ocean thermal inertia, the earth has warmed as much as expected, within the admittedly rather large uncertainties. Ironically, it is exactly because aerosol forcing is so uncertain and because the climate hasn’t equilibrated yet that the observed warming since pre-industrial times is only a very weak constraint on climate sensitivity. Lindzen seems very certain of something that most scientists would readily admit is very uncertain.
Conclusion
So we have the peculiar situation that both of these approaches try to claim that climate sensitivity is small, but the NIPCC approach is to claim that aerosol forcing is very large (thus providing a negative feedback to warming), whereas the Lindzen approach is to claim that aerosol forcing is very small (thus necessitating a small sensitivity to explain the observed warming so far). Of course they can’t both be right, and probably neither of them are. Looking back at the figure above, both approaches are based on assuming that aerosol forcing is at the edge of the probability spectrum (as if it were some fudge factor), whereas the most likely value is somewhere in the mid range. Both approaches also ignore the other lines of evidence that point to climate sensitivity likely being in the range of 2 to 4.5 degrees. E.g. a value as small as suggested by the NIPCC (0.3 degrees) is entirely inconsistent with the paleo-climate record of substantial climate changes in the earth’ history. And finally, both approaches implicitly assign high confidence to some of the most uncertain aspects of climate science, even though they routinely mock climate science as if nothing is known at all.
Of course it is not mandatory for all those who dismiss mainstream climate science to agree, but to see two important “spokespeople” for climate contrarians take such mutually inconsistent approaches is peculiar. Even more so when you realize that Lindzen signed the recent “prudent path” letter to US Congress, in which the NIPCC report was approvingly cited… Most people can’t have it both ways, but apparently climate contrarians can.
See also a more detailed critique of the NIPCC and of Lindzen’s argument.
Biodiversity, extinction and climate change
February 19, 2011The previous thread turned into a discussion on how climate change might affect biodiversity. It started with Jeff Id’s taunt:
A warmer world will produce more food, biodiversity and a nice place for people and critters to live. Polar bears might be mad, but life is hard.
Aftersome back and forth’s, with e.g. Dave H noting the apparent disconnect between a strong focus on uncertainty and such a strong statement about positive effects, ecologist Jeff Harvey chimed in:
high temperatures are not a pre-requisite for high biodiversity
He points out that an important factor for maintaining high genetic and species richness is
stability – that is, that conditions in a region are not altered frequently by some important extrinsic challenge, such as rapid local climatic changes. (…)
the current rate of warming threatens to seriously undermine the functioning of biomes and ecosystems through uneven effects on species within tightly interacting food webs. (…)
Our species has simplified the planet biologically through the combined effects of paving, ploughing, damming, dredging. logging. slashing and burning, mining, dousing in synthetic pesticides, biologically homogenizing (e.g. through invasive species), altering the chemical composition of the air and water, and through various other forms of pollution. We know that genetic diversity is being lost at rates unseen in 65 million years, and against this background we are challenging an already impoverished fauna and flora to respond to climate changes that are unprecedented in perhaps tens of thousands of years.
I think like so many tied up in the eco-sciences you have blended too many causes and effects together to attribute the micro-warming to anything damaging to the ecosystem. (…)
my point is that over the next hundred years of warm weather, it would certainly result in higher planetary biomass all other effects unconsidered. Higher biomass eventually results in higher diversity. Warm in general is good for the planet, if you do it slowly enough and not too much of it.
How fast and how much, we could argue all day.
I tried condensing Harvey’s points thus:
– Biodiversity depends more strongly on the rate of change of climate than on the actual climatic state (i.e. whether “warm” or “cold”).
– That is consistent both with evidence from the past and with theoretical considerations
– Biodiversity is already being stressed (by multiple anthopogenic stressors, of which climate change is one), and this stress is likely to increase as (the rate of) climate change will increase. (i.e. future projected biodiversity loss is much stronger than current biodiversity loss)
Of course, it’s a bit more cpmplicated than that, as Harvey aludes to in his reply. Later on he notes that
The IUCN (…) does not classify a species as being ‘formally’ extinct until it has not been recorded in the wild for at least 50 years.
And on the current rate of extionction:
We KNOW that between 10 and 40% of well-known species (vascular plants and vertebrates) are threatened with extinction.
This is an area that don’t know much about, so I don’t have much to add. It’s a very important aspect though, especially when taking into account that projected future (rates of) warming are much stronger than what we’ve seen so far. Not to mention that once a species is lost, it’s lost practically forever. I would think that the rate of species loss can be much greater than the maximum rate of new species development (or creation if you wish ;-).
References on biodiversity, extinction and climate change:
Extinction risks from climate change
Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity
Papers on ecosystem response to past climate change
Revkin on Steig, O’Donnell, peer review and solid scientific basics
February 12, 2011Andy Revkin wrote a good overview of the recent kerfuffle between Eric Steig and Ryan O’Donnell. His piece is centred around contrasting the conflicting views at the edge of the scientific development with the well understood basics of scientific knowledge that makes up the big picture:
I also hope that tussles at the edges of understanding, where data are scant or uncertainty is high, don’t distract the public too much from the basics of climate science, which are boringly undisputed yet still speak of a rising risk that sorely needs addressing.
That’s a very important point to make, and I applaud Revkin for doing so. Media attention to new results (which are usually disputed to a certain extent) can sometimes lead to a skewed picture of the scientific knowledge in the field as a whole, which tend to be underreported. That’s why Revkin’s framing here is important, as it drives home the fact that a dispute at the edge of knowledge (spatial statistics as applied to Antarctic temperature trends) does not mean that the whole theory of climate change is suddenly disputed. Revkin:
Everything laid out above tends to draw attention away from the broad and deep body of work pointing to a growing and long-lasting human influence on the climate system.
Revkin does however exhibit a misunderstanding of peer review when he writes:
The exchanges between Steig and O’Donnell do raise questions about peer review, given that Steig has said he was an early anonymous reviewer (…)
This got quite a few people riled up. I wrote in to state that I think it still is a
Very good article, and good to see attention to detail not go at the cost of also providing the context of what is known.
One comment:
You say this all argument raises questions about peer review. But in fact, it is completely normal, or expected even, that authors whose paper is being critized are one of the reviewers. They are most familiar with the issues, plus it enables the editor to hear both sides.
Of course the editor needs to be aware of the position of this reviewer as the one being critiqued and weigh the review accordingly with other reviews from more disinterested parties. Revkin has since posted Louis Derry’s response, an editor of a geosciences journal:
1. Editors make final decisions. Reviewers make recommendations only.
2. It is common for a submission that critiques previous work to be sent to the author of the critiqued work for review. 2a. That emphatically does NOT mean the reviewer has veto power. It means that his/her opinion is worth having. Such a choice is usually balanced by reviewers that editors believe are reasonably independent, and the review of the critiqued is weighted accordingly. Suggestions that asking Steig to review O’Donnell was somehow unethical are utterly without support in normal scientific practice. Obviously, Steig did not have veto power over O’Donnell’s paper.
3. The fact that O”Donnell’s paper went through several rounds of review is absolutely unsurprising and unexceptional. Many papers on far less public topics do the same.
4. Some have questioned why Stieig 09 got “more” visibility than O’Donnell 10. The answer is simple. Steig had a “result,” O”Donnell had a technical criticism of methodology.
He also chimes in about the importance of the context as provided by Revkin:
Finally, Revkin’s point that the Steig vs O’Donnell debate is not unusual in the progress of science and does not have much of anything to say about the majority of the evidence is correct. Disagreement about how to model the flight of a Frisbee correctly doesn’t imply that basic aerodynamics are wrong. Disagreement about how many EOFs [empirical orthogonal functions] to use to model Antarctic [temperature] changes doesn’t imply that climate physics is wrong.
The Frisbee comment reminded me of one of my favorite sayings: Observing a bird in the sky doesn’t disprove gravity. The science may not be settled, but solid it is.
Some more things have been said about peer review by others. E.g. Andrew “Bishop Hill” Montford writes in the Hockeystick illusion, page 205 (h/t Tim Lambert):
As the CC [Climatic Change] paper was critical of his work, McIntyre was invited to be one of the peer reviewers.
Guess we can all agree on that aspect of peer review now.
Update: John Nielsen-Gammon has some useful things to say about peer review here (on revealing the identity of reviewer), here (retelling the story and why it makes sense to have had Steig as a reviewer; quoting Steig; interesting dicussion), and here (explaining the dynamics of peer review and making the interesting suggestion of mentoring relative outsiders navigate peer review).
Arctic sea ice was higher in 1989 cherrypicking by Harrison Schmitt and Heartland Institute
February 8, 2011How could someone possibly claim that
Arctic sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage
Easy. The proof is in the data, of course:
See: The red line is clearly higher than the blue one in april.
Is this a joke? I wish. This was said by ex-astronaut and New Mexico’s energy secretary Harrison Schmitt. The Heartland Institute had carefully picked april of 1989 and 2009 as the basis for comparison.
As regular readers here know, I’m very open to different opinions and to reconciliation efforts. But this has of course nothing to do with true skepticism. Look at those two lines! This is definitely not the kind of “skepticism” that we should be taking more seriously. I hope everybody (including Judith Curry) can at least agree to that. I’m all for bridge building, but let’s at least make sure that reality remains somewhat in view while standing on the bridge.
See also Scott Mandia, Chris Mooney, Charlie Petit, Lou Grinzo, Richard Littlemore, Tim Lambert (suitable title: “Now THAT’s cherrypicking”), Peter Sinclair and Peter Gleick at the HuffPo.
Graph via Tim Lambert and Peter Gleick. Pictur here.
Open thread feb 2011
February 8, 2011Have at it, with some minimum level of civility.
My view on climate change 
