climate change
30 Jun 2009
Steve's Diabolical Challenge
Steve Fielding's one-man effort to understand climate change reflects one of the fundamental problems of modern life: the individual's inability to comprehend so much stuff
Like Senator Steve Fielding, I am a lapsed engineer. Like Steve, I have attempted to understand the science of climate change. Unlike Steve, I eventually understood that the task is beyond ordinary mortals. In fact it is even beyond the intellect of a single engineer. I realised that we should be leaving it to the experts with the broadest possible exposure to the issue.For a while late last year, I spent many hours trying to draw my own conclusions about climate change. I grazed on books, chewed through reports and fed on the ever-expanding harvest of internet articles. I even snacked on the rants of blog commenters with names like "treeman" and "thingadonta" and "havequestions". I was careful to keep my diet balanced, ensuring that I was consuming equally from the tables of both the believers and the sceptics.
But it was all to no avail. I felt like I was trying to do brain surgery without having done the training. In the end the same arguments and counter-arguments tied me up like a rope from which I could not escape. I had to conclude that the intricacy of the science and the sheer volume of material were beyond me.
It was comforting to have Nobel laureate Peter Doherty's reassurance that climate change "is an enormously complex area and it's difficult for people outside the area to understand the science" when he spoke at the recent University of Melbourne Festival of Ideas. Doherty includes himself as one of those challenged by this complexity.
I can sympathise when Steve Fielding says that he would "be letting down the Australian people if I didn't properly research the issues". But he is misguided in thinking that he'll be able to do so. Steve needs to stick to his job, which is contributing to policy, and leave the scientific debate to the scientists.
Our world is a complicated place. Most of us struggle to remember to pick up the kids, to keep the credit cards under control and to fit a modicum of exercise into our busy routines. For everything beyond the immediate sphere of our individual lives, we rely on experts for their guidance and help and ability to keep us safe. We rely on the expertise of medical professionals to keep us healthy. We count on engineers to design safe buildings and bridges. We count on economists — even after their fallibility is demonstrated — to maintain our standard of living.
We routinely accept the advice of experts as a matter of faith because we have to. We simply can't expect to know everything they know. So when a medicine is prescribed we generally take it. Sometimes, particularly if things get more involved, we might seek a second opinion, and we might weigh that opinion against the first before acting. When cyclist Lance Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996, he consulted a number of oncologists before finding one whose proposed treatment he believed in. But when he finally settled on a course of action his choice was ultimately a matter of faith in his chosen expert — he didn't have time to do his own oncology degree.
In complex scientific fields there will always be myriad alternative diagnoses, prognoses and treatments. It is a common mistake to think otherwise. As Professor James Shanteau, an "expert on experts" at Kansas State University has argued, a single right answer — a "golden truth" as he calls it — is too much to expect in such areas: "In reality, problems rarely are simple enough to lead to single correct answers."
This is precisely the mistake Steve Fielding makes when he says, "I now need the science to be resolved." He will be waiting forever.
The mega-challenge of climate change, as I discovered in my own amateur research, is that each individual scientific contribution is hugely complex and the alternative arguments in each field are even more so. The temperature issue alone, which Fielding has settled upon as his way into the subject, can be analysed in the short-, medium- or long-term, and from the point of view of air, ocean or ice temperatures, and on the basis of both observation and computer modelling. Each combination provides a different perspective; the huge number of permutations provide at least one perspective to suit every argument.
No one — not Steve Fielding, nor any of his four new amigos, nor any other "expert panel of one" — can, on their own, expect to make full and proper sense of all this. Achieving the best possible result requires forums for the broadest, most comprehensive debate possible. It requires debate between scientific disciplines, and debate between individual scientists who work in the same field but who have collected different data or used differing approaches. And it requires debate between active scientists who disagree with each other but retain open minds.
Luckily for us, for Joe Public, such forums exist on an unprecedented scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global collection of hundreds of expert scientists from a range of climate-related disciplines, was created to do just that. It has been, and remains, their role to look at all the science, to weigh the arguments and to reach an agreement as close to consensus as is realistically possible. In March this year the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen brought together more than 2500 scientists from more than 80 countries to assess the science yet again. It is, rightly, the conclusions of these broad scientific churches that inform much of the climate change policy being instigated by governments around the planet.
None of these groups is perfect. They can't provide a golden truth because, again, there isn't one. As large organisations they can be hampered by bureaucracy. And their expert members, being human, are as prone to playing politics, protecting positions and pursuing praise as anyone else. But they do have plenty of debate, though they do much of it face-to-face with each other rather than via the comments sections of a million blogs.
Like it or not, they are the best chance we have of approaching this properly. They, collectively, are the doctor with the most expansive view.
Steve Fielding still says he thinks that climate change is real. He says he is "someone that [sic] actually wants to take a balanced view", which would be an approach consistent with his engineering roots. But he isn't doing this. He is ignoring the complexity of the issue and has decided instead to let a relatively small amount of very limited personal research guide his decision-making on the subject and the action it requires. He is kidding himself and he is letting us down.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
No one could possibly put it better than:
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.”
-Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)
Of course the debate about climate change is best left to the experts. There’s been a long list of opinions from "climate change sceptics" few of these have any relevant qualifications whatsoever. It’s a remarkably arrogant attitude for a non specialist to but in and dispute the findings of scientists who have made the study of climate their careers.
Fielding is ‘caught between two rocks and a hard place’, to quote a genuine buffoon.
How on earth can a man who is signed up as a religious extremist, who has ‘faith’ as his guiding principle through life, not a healthy questioning demeanour, ever going to understand anything at all to do with science?
Senator Steve ‘Albert’ Fielding, needs to get back on the Ark with his third-world sized ‘fambly’ and wait for the waters to rise before he and they are carried off to the very edge of the world, whereupon, according to the new Pope, Bazza Houston, and 85% of the population of the USA, and Tony Blair, they will fall off and enter ‘the abyss’ (sometimes known as a parliamentary superannuation scam) and we can all rest in peace.
A goose, is a goose, but thanks for all the larffs ‘Albert’.
While doing my Geography degree I also spent a year or so studying climate science on the side, and came to a similar conclusion as the author.
But rather than side with a conglomeration of experts as he does, I focus on their stated goal, which is to ‘fix’ the climate. That phrase sets alarm bells ringing for a start. ….
Ahhhhhh… I get it. It’s a decision of faith left to a unrepresentative institution of elites. That’s never led us in to trouble in the past! I’m surprised Steve has an issue with this… Isn’t he catholic?
Wikipedia says he’s pentecostal. I take it back.
Rocky: Flannery is not a climate scientist and has no relevant qualifications. Should he shut up? Stern and Garnaut are both economists. Should they shut up?
craiglaw2,
You’ve missed the point, which was a criticism of non specialists arrogantly and ignorantly claiming they had found flaws in the work of climate scientists. These individuals really don’t know what they don’t know.
Where did I say any one had to shut up? The point is how much weight we should give to Fielding’s opinions, a small feather perhaps? As to Garnaut and Stern, as far as I understand, they are drawing on the work of climate scientists to model economic trends, not buying in to the climate debate,at the scientific level,which is fair enough. I hope Flannery is taking the same approach.
The analogies are rubbish in this article.
If we trust engineers to build bridges it’s because they have a long history of building bridges which do not collapse.
If we trust doctors to prescribe the right medicines it’s because the medicines prescribed have a proven history of working.
And economists providing for our standard of living!?! Huh? I guess democatric insitutions, workers, small business owners, natural resources etc., have nothing to do with it. Economics history has some value I suppose.
Climate Scientists, on the other hand, have little or no track record of accurate analysis and prediction, and no tested and viable solution (to the problem they can’t accurately predict). Why should we trust them and their crazy computer models?
flannery is a palaeontologist and as such requires considerable understanding of biogeochemical processes that influence climate. I would be pretty confident that he has a decent grasp of the subject and is qualified to comment.
If the experts can’t convince an engineer with their logic and data - then they’re clearly not very expert at all.
And therefore their theories are just that - theories.
If someone like Einstein can convince most scientists and layman of his theories as facts by using only mathematics, then these so-called scientific experts should be able to do the same, but they can’t.
Their stastistics and data do not equate to, nor even necessarily point to an ever-increasing global temperature that is in a direct interrelationship (and therefore caused by) ever-rising amounts of CO2!
Weather is far too complicated for us as humans to even suggest that we have the powers needed to control it. This is anthroprocentrism at its most narcissistic!
There were not enough Germans who had the gumption to stand up against Hitler’s Third Reich - hopefully there will be enough sane and independent scientists to realise the enormity of these puny conclusions in regards to affecting climate change, before the rest of us are steamrolled by this political and scientific insanity.
Trixie: Assuming wikipedia is accurate…
"Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life, including organisms’ evolution and interactions with each other and their environments (their paleoecology). As a "historical science" it tries to explain causes rather than conduct experiments to observe effects….. "
craig
the key being "evolution and interactions with each other and their environment" To understand the evolution of a species you must understand the environment selecting adaptation. Environment includes not just the physical surrounds of the species but climatic events as well. A peleontologist trains not just in biology but in geology and chemistry and basic meterology. They have a clear understanding of different geological periods which are normally defined by a change in claimate (eg ice age or non ice age) and influenced by a combination of biological and geoloical processes.
You can not be a palentologist without understanding these cycles much as you could not become a physician without an understanding of basic chemistry or anatomy. You could argue that he may not have the same knowledge on weather patterns as a pure meteorologist but then again he’s more qualified to talk about the biological impacts of climate change than A representative from the BOM maybe. But to suggest he’s not qualified to comment on these processes at all is misguided.
But its also the branch of engineering too. Chemical, Mechanical and Aero subjects may give the best insights. But you need even high level science training in physics and chem. Poor Steve Fielding’s brain will explode I’m afraid.
Good article.
Jane E
Whether or not Climate Change is occurring, and whether or not is it anthropogenic to any meaningful degree is not the main issue. The issue is why entrenched interests have such a stranglehold on the global energy industry that the last two decades have been wasted. There is plenty of non-fossil fuel technology for energy production. A great deal of it has been starved for funding.
As well as trying to understand the interactions between El Nino / La Nina and the Indian Ocean Dipole, questions should be being asked about the anti-competitive nature of the energy and transportation industries. Given the possibility of dramatic climate change, depletion of oil supplies and the political instability of many regions which supply it, prudence suggests that energy sources should be as diverse as possible.
David I agree with much of what you say. The mindlessness of threads where some fellow (usually) has latched on to some piece of denialism picked up from Plimer, say, or Andrew Bolt, and announces it with triumph as the proof that thousands of climate and other scientists around the globe, working for the last century, have got it all wrong, not considered, say, cosmic rays, or water vapour, or Mars icecaps, or whatever, is brain numbing. It is almost impossible to imagine similar foolishness on a nuclear physics, or microbiology, or cosmology, or genetics, blog.
But your fundamental mistake, because you are clearly a nice fellow who doesn’t want to say anything bad about a Senator, is to imagine that Fielding is a genuine perplexed seeker after truth. The choice of Plimer and Carter etc as his "advisers" tells you that he only wants to confirm his own fundamental religious free market ideology which does not permit the possibility that humans are altering the climate and that a change in behaviour can reverse the damage. All he is doing is presenting a "validation" of his own prejudices. As is every denialist on every blog around the world. They don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Climate_change/).
Suggesting that the IPCC meets the challenge that David Brewster posed is either ignorant or disingenuous. The role of the IPCC, agreed by it member governments, is to “assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change etc.”
However, over its 20 year existence it has morphed into an alarmist advocacy organisation, supporting a self selecting group of scientists whose livelihoods depend upon persuading non experts to believe they can predict the future. John Zillman has made the telling comment that there is, as yet, no authoritative assessment of the role assigned to the IPCC. Those of us who have endeavoured to get critical information about the workings of the IPCC are met with an Omertà that would not be out of place in Sicily.
The IPCC Assessment Report is an exercise in concealment. Most of its bulk is uncontroversial, open and transparent. However, the few critical areas on which the bulk depends, such as current and historic temperatures and attribution studies, are not, and depend upon a handful of opaque studies. The clearest examples, in the 2007 report, of malpractice are the improper rule change to retain an invalid paper and allow a perverse conclusion in Chapter 6 of working group one; and fact that no Government, or the public was allowed to see the Expert Reviewers’ comments, Lead Authors’ responses or the Review Editor’s reports before the report was accepted.
As another lapsed engineer, I instinctively distrust well paid self interested groups that will not divulge the basic data and methodology which, in some critical areas of climate science, is the rule not the exception. We have two recent examples of concealment in other fields to think about in the UK: bankers and politicians.
Denise,
What’s special about engineers? Einstein didn’t convince any one that his theories were facts by using mathematics alone, Einstein’s theories were verified by later observations, any experiment could still prove him wrong. I’m sure not everyone accepted Relativity 100 years ago, and it’s still incomplete as a cosmology.
We could ignore climate modelling,there’s plenty of independent biological evidence of global warming, whether it’s long or short term, or caused by humans, who knows.
Anyone heard of supernovae?
We’re overdue for one in a galaxy not so very far away.
It appears they are capable of stripping electrons from the ozone layer and converting the resultant oxygen to sizzling plasma.
The equation I believe is O3 E+++ -> O2 and OH O! was that a black hole or my asshole I just disappeared up?
So capture all the C you like.
but the process of photosynthesis which makes sugar from the raw ingredients of :
6 CO2 + 12 H2O sunlight-> C6H12O6 (sugar)+6H2O + 6 O2 (gaseous oxygen)
Can only work with chlorophyl as the catalyst, the green stuff in leaves.
So let’s not forget that the forests are the earth’s lungs and it does’nt matter whether you believe in the holy trinity or not, ie Climate change, global warming and greenhouse gas build up. It’s bleeding obvious that "mothership earth" has got about a snowflakes chance in hades of lasting another millenium, irrespective of who the captain and crew are.
Sorry, Oli
I’m not a scientist, not an engineer, and - thank Steve’s god - not Steve Fielding. But 2,500 scientists from 80 countries, regardless of elements of self-promotion within the ranks, is a good enough panel for me.
What if they’re right? Let’s fix it and fix it fast.
What if they’re wrong? We’ll have used fewer - undeniably finite - resources, developed a larger variety of resources, and questioned our material ways before possibly doing something constructive for our usually invisible poorer neighbours, including the ones whose islands are sinking (god knows why). Argue about economics all you like (some people even dare call it a science) - who ever gets that right anyway?
With all our neurones being lit up from one thought impact to another we can construct immeasurable specific diagnoses to satisfy the pallette of climate change yay or nay, however, this crisis of confusion over the climate and the appearance of historically recorded climate firsts as in temperature and flooding may just be the evolutionary jolt that is required to alter our psyche and enter into the brave new world.
After all is said and done, any change from destruction to cohabitation can only help our time on the planet but will it help the resultant population explosion?
Pulpyahummer,
If there were no collateral cost to mitigation you might be right. On the other hand it might be like the ill advised DDT ban and cost the poor of the third world dearly. We have already spent billions in the name of climate change without any benefit whatsoever, and which could have provided clean water and safe energy for the many of the poor of the world.
The 2500 scientists from 80 countries you mention is pure propaganda relating to the whole IPCC report most of which is consequential on the conclusions of a small fraction of the 2500. It is the science of Working Group One that matters. In that the 11 chapters were written by only 152 Authors from 30 countries and reviewed by 600 Experts whose critical comments, on the science, were almost entirely ignored. The authors had only the time to work on their own chapters, so any consensus based on first hand knowledge of specific science is limited to a handful of scientists on any individual issue.
If you take a critical chapter such as WGI Ch 6 which concluded that natural variation of the climate was insignificant, and that the ‘hockey stick’ was mathematically and scientifically sound, it had just 16 Lead Authors who by the IPCC rules can and indeed did ignore Expert Reviewer’s advice that their conclusions were hopelessly flawed. For that matter they even ignored the unanimous conclusions of the US NRC Expert Panel on which one of them served. I am pretty sure that the contentious matters were pushed through by less than half the authors. Alarming climate change fears are driven by a comparatively small articulate group.
As for the 30 countries, I do not mean to demean anyone but to suggests they influence the Anglo-American dominated science or the IPCC process is fanciful. They are window dressing. For instance, the Chinese Co Chair of WGI to my certain knowledge was not an addressee on certain WGI emails on controversial issues.
On the other hand the flaws in climate science are mostly the same basic errors in data quality, sampling, logic and statistical analysis which occur in medicine economics and other disciplines and are easily recognised by the thousands of critics outside the magic circle.
David I agree with much of what you say. The mindlessness of threads where some fellow (usually) has latched on to some piece of denialism picked up from Plimer, say, or Andrew Bolt, and announces it with triumph as the proof that thousands of climate and other scientists around the globe, working for the last century, have got it all wrong, not considered, say, cosmic rays, or water vapour, or Mars icecaps, or whatever, is brain numbing. It is almost impossible to imagine similar foolishness on a nuclear physics, or microbiology, or cosmology, or genetics, blog.
But your fundamental mistake, because you are clearly a nice fellow who doesn’t want to say anything bad about a Senator, is to imagine that Fielding is a genuine perplexed seeker after truth. The choice of Plimer and Carter etc as his "advisers" tells you that he only wants to confirm his own fundamental religious free market ideology which does not permit the possibility that humans are altering the climate and that a change in behaviour can reverse the damage. All he is doing is presenting a "validation" of his own prejudices. As is every denialist on every blog around the world. They don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I take the view that it is far better to act now and strongly, just in case the Climate Scientists are right, (and I believe that they ARE right) than to sit on the fence and watch the water rising. And the water is indeed rising. I keep getting reminded of the stupid frog, who sits and waits while getting boiled alive.
And so many of the ‘deniers’ are getting paid by the Big Polluters, who are extremely short-sighed in their hanging on to the status-quo, to spread their delaying and debilitating poison.
And as for Tim Flannery, he is also a believer in Nuclear energy, without offering any solution to the waste disposal problems. And one does not get to be Australian of the Year without some known adherence to the policies and views of the moneyed and self-interested elite. Nice bloke, but NOT someone I would trust with my life.
As for engineers, I have always been under the impression that they are much like some other professions with very rigid parameters, most find it hard to think and act out of very constrained boxes. They work with known, and well known Physical Rules, and anything outside those Rules can stretch their imaginations beyond elasticity. Again, mostly nice people, but still not people I would voluntarily hand my life to.
Global Warming, and he consequent Mass Extinctions, caused by Human Interventions over the past couple of hundred years, is something that the Human Race has never had to cope with before, and as far as I can see, we are failing to cope with it this time. The Inertia stopping change is quite incredibly strong. Dazza.
And I do think that one very strong reason why our Government and our Opposition (and Fielding) are so bloody minded in not wanting to do anything constructive about Global Warming is that they are all bloody God Botherers, and seem to think that THEIR deity would not allow the end of the Earth as we know it.
Silly, stupid, dumb people! As if we Humans really mattered in the scheme of Cosmic Things! Dazza.
Jane E touches on my attitude to climate change, which is as follows.
Most of the things we are told we need to do to capture and store carbon have a wide range of positive side effects. Firstly is of course that we pollute less in a general sense, with positive outcomes for health and environment. The growing awareness of our impact on the planet will not stop at carbon but will have far reaching and, in my opinion positive, effects on the course of human development.
Secondly it appears humans need to be on a war footing, so why not gear ourselves to a war on warming. How much more useful to have a global issue that at least poses a threat to all humankind. This is a uniting issue that does not entail killing poor people around the globe, like previous wars on other countries, drugs or terror.
So it doesn’t really matter to me if the scientists are wrong, although I would be gobsmacked if that is the case. The real value comes from the efforts we make as a species to ensure the sustainability of the planet as an ecosystem. Its great stuff, and I hope it defines our activities for the next thousand years.
"Steve Fielding still says he thinks that climate change is real. He says he is "someone that [sic] actually wants to take a balanced view", which would be an approach consistent with his engineering roots. But he isn’t doing this. He is ignoring the complexity of the issue and has decided instead to let a relatively small amount of very limited personal research guide his decision-making on the subject and the action it requires. He is kidding himself and he is letting us down."
Quite the opposite Steve fielding is doing us a favour.
The onus is one those who would destroy our economy to prove that the cost is worth it.
As to "2500 scientists from more than 80 countries" beware of "herd mentality or the "halo effect".
We have not got past step one.
1. Is the World actually warming?
2. Is the warming man-made?
3. Can we do anything to correct such a warming?
4. Shouldn’t we devote our resources to prepare for sustainable living in a new environment.
Personally I think all of our energies should be devoted to 4. This "Carbon Market" is an expensive and worthless distraction.
Stick to your guns, Steve.
I’m certainly hopeful that I’m not being sucked in by herd mentality, EarnestLee and David Holland, but like most of the population, I find the science on this issue too complex for my limited skills or experience and have to choose between ignoring it or choosing who to trust. Unfortunately, whenever I see arguments from naysayers (not including bloggers like ourselves), they seem to be from a handful of Bolts or Plimers or Fieldings who have papers to sell or mining interests to promote or gods to bother.
As an aside, David, if billions have been spent on promoting this issue, I don’t see that it has been redirected from third world needs, because the powers that be would have found something else to waste it on anyway, as they do.
And, Earnest, I agree that the carbon market is a worthless distraction (as usual, the market will fix everything, i.e. governments wash their hands of responsibility), but I think we should be addressing no. 3 as well as 4. Why can’t we do both?
guywire
Panels, commissions, Institutes, Advisory Boards, Consultative Committees and the like often have long histories of acheivement.
Lunch dates with sometimes new and in rare cases, interesting Menus. Mostly their major concerns are publicly expected to stall the process, long enough to be nominated for another position. who can blame Steve for his course.
To me it is no surprise that the public (myself included), is so disillusioned and cynical about Governmental velocity on what ‘scientists’ say is the great issue of our time, that they retreat into football and cosmology.
My course is not to resolve the issues, but to try to entertain us while some long fogotten god rises from it’s abyss to strike us all down, from our mountains of fear. From cauldrons of recrimination our very lifeblood splashes into the the fire and we stand by looking dumbfoundedly at the clock ticking away at our chances of survival, knowing that our children may not at all forgive our deviant interest in football and cosmology. They may herd us all toward the justice of Torquemada. How interesting will be the Lunch Menu then my loves?
I realise NM is a left wing e-journal publishing to the converted but this bull shit can’t go unchallenged.
Yes it so happens I am a scientist and a lifetimes teaching in medicine and science have taught me some lessons: maths and science (no not pussy maths and "environmental" science but pure maths and hard physical sciences) are beyond the capability of the vast majority of people: like it or not we are not made equal and some of us have natural gifts for this sort of thing (God given if you are Fielding, fate of genetics if you are not).
The Computer models which attempt to implement climate physics are actually quite difficult because they cover all of the physical sciences (and have nothing to do with "environmental" science!) from basic quantum physics to mechanics to chemistry to biological all implemented in mathematical equations. But the faces you see on TV and in the papers have none of these qualifications: the Greenpeacers, WWFers, Climate Institutes, NCCers, etc etc etc are not physical scientists but are simply those with some sort of pantheist driven political agendas riding on the back of the fear of global warming.
Those of us who do understand the science and maths KNOW that the IPCCs GCM computer models are primitive and flawed; our arguments are NOT about the science but about the limitations of our computer implementation of the science. I could rabbit on about the problems but two simple examples demonstrate the problem:
Problem 1: The GCM computer models balance energy flowing into and out of the earth system with energy left over contributing to ~T of the planet. However there are huge mixing events which occur in the planet i.e. El Nino, thermohaline flow etc etc. Even big cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons cause massive mixing and transfer of substantial amounts of energy. These events are responsible for transferring about HALF of the total energy on earth and yet not a single one of the GCM models used by the IPCC can predict any of these events AT ALL let alone with any accuracy. Now the "pro" scientists argue this is not relevant because these are "short term" events however those who have experience with solving the types of equations in GCMs KNOW that it is precisely the "short term" events (parasitics as they are known) which determine the long term outcomes. Previous experience with hydro dynamics, electronics, protein folding etc etc tell us unequivocally that IT IS these small events which, either through accumulation or feedback mechanisms, determine the long term outcome.
Problem 2: We cannot get even the most basic computer model of the atmosphere even close to reality. When we take the simplest possible situation: a perfectly clear sky with no dust or clouds and compare our BEST computer models against reality we find that the simplest factor: incident energy at the surface is out by a factor of 20-30Wm^2. This is commonly known as the "absorption anomaly". When we now consider that the WHOLE contribution of all CO2 is about 5Wm^2 we can see that even the simplest model is wrong on CO2 by a factor of 5-6! This was recently show blatantly when the same GCMs as the IPCC use were run on the vastly simpler Mars environment; no oceans, no storms, no vegetation, slow motion, nothing complicated at all and as the head of the NASA JPL said: "we weren’t even close the predicting the climate on Mars".
Now to the IPCC. First of all there are TWO IPCC reports: the "Scientific Report" which is written by SCIENTISTS and the "Summary Report" written by POLITICIANS. Most of you have probably never seen the SCIENTIFIC report let alone read it. So let’s put some facts on the table about the IPCC: there were never 2500 scientists in the IPCC process. There were about 1200 and the vast majority of them had nothing whatsoever to do with climate science, rather they were involved with "what if" scenarios related to planning and economic issues. The only relevant bits of the IPCC report were Ch 9 and 10. Ch 9 was the part that used computer models to blame human CO2 for any warming and Ch 10 was the review of the models used in Ch 9. In total there were about 53 "climate scientists" involved. If these 53 are WRONG then the whole IPCC report is WRONG.
Two aspects of the IPCC report were worrying:
Worrying Aspect 1: Almost half of the [real] climate scientists who reviewed Ch 9 said it was WRONG! The review report was hidden until well after the "Summary for Policy Makers" was published.
Worrying Aspect 2: The IPCC scientists are appointed by POLITICIANS. Since the first AR report about half of the hard core "climate scientists" have resigned citing political interference from POLITICIANS as the reason for quitting. Those who are left are the "Yes Minister" scientists who receive lavish funding and grants etc for saying "Yes Minister". The process of the IPCC was always secretive but now it is ridiculous and the complete process is hidden and secret and there is no open or independent review. To give two simple examples:
- The raw surface temperature data (and the algorithms used to "remove" urban heat effects) are classed as a state secrets and no scientists (other than the IPCC elite) can even see the data or algorithms.
- The computer code for the GCMs which the IPCC use is also a secret so there can be no independent analysis of verification.
Now tell me again why we blindly believe the IPCC and its computer models?
Hey icedvolvo,
For someone who says they are one of the chosen few who can represent "hard" science, that is a rather illogical and melodramatic post.
Do you have any non-blog evidence to support your claim that half the climate scientists in the IPCC resigned in protest against doctoring of results and the other half are corrupt?
Plus, lets face it, there is nothing scientific about using CAPITALS to make a POINT. It really has the effect of making you look like a bit of a JERK.
icedvolvo, I appreciate NM may well be a left wing e-journal publishing to quite a few who are already converted, but I graze here mainly to get a balance of opinions on certain topics. One thing NM is good at is allowing a right of reply for anyone criticised in any article and complete variance of opinion (eg. completely differing views on Obama’s speech in Egypt).
Given you believe you have special insight into the issue and special qualification to comment, may I suggest you offer a full-size article for publication on NM with references and using your real name or at least have your identity verified by NM.
dazza, - “thinking outside the box”,
You must be kidding. Engineering has had many Brunels, Stephensons, Whittles and Brawns who thought outside the box. The thing you are reading this on is proof that good engineers think outside the box. Turning scientific discoveries into the commodities we all depend upon is largely an engineering exercise. The big difference with engineers is that we all know we will be judged within our lifetimes.
No one will know for at least 50 years whether the climate scientists know what they are talking about. In such circumstances all you can judge them by is their transparency and willingness to enter into critical debate and risk the falsification of their theories. I do not care what the field is, if one can not see the raw data, selection criteria, and detailed methodology (which means runnable code) on which a scientific claim is based it remains just that and deserves no credence. I am not saying I can or will check every theory but if it is transparently archived someone probably will.
Incidentally if the name Brawn does not ring any bells he must be a candidate for Nobel prize in thinking outside box, having taken an abandoned Formula One team from the wilderness to a commanding lead in the championship. Ross also took Michael Schumacher to seven championships. Good engineers are always thinking outside the box.
David Horton,
The mistake you make is assuming that almost all of those who dispute alarming climate change forecasts deny any established science. That humans can and do change the climate is beyond dispute. London is well known to be up to 8 deg C warmer than its surrounding countryside. No one disputes that CO2 absorbs radiant energy. Those believing alarming climate theories often forget to mention that it and water vapour also gives out that energy high in the atmosphere, or that the world is largely cooled by convection, the hydrological cycle and cloud cover. They must also believe that scientists have discovered all that there is to be discovered about the climate system.
The dispute is only as to whether climate models can prove anything. The alarming theory of positive feedback enhanced warming was not empirically discovered and proved by observation. It was a conjecture which the computer models were built to demonstrate. Positive as opposed to negative overall feedback in the climate is an assumption, disputed in the professional literature. The models also assume that variation in global temperature, not caused by CO2, is very small, whereas most people with any grasp of history know that is not possible. For a decade the models have been wrong.
The political divide you point to is real enough not for scientific reasons but because of the policy prescriptions that flow from the theory of alarming warming, and which incidentally includes ever increasing career opportunities for prophets of doom as well controls on almost all aspects of our lives.
"positive feedback enhanced warming was not empirically discovered and proved by observation. It was a conjecture" um, no, it is basic physics. And "whether climate models can prove anything" is not the point. The problem we are faced with is a matter of observation of the past of the real world. The models help to show what the future is going to bring, and are based on physics and climatology.
And politics? I always find that the reference to the banning of DDT is dead giveaway in marking the politics of the person in denial.
Feedback, positive or negative, is not “basic physics”. You can take identical components with identical physics and arrange them in subtly different ways to deliver either sign of feedback and differing magnitudes – think of oversteer and understeer.
The unproven theory that is driving climate alarm has nothing directly to do with the minor greenhouse gases carbon dioxide. The basic physics that you talk of, is that if anything causes the atmosphere to warm, it can support a higher concentration of the most powerful greenhouse gas - water vapour. However, it takes a lot of energy to get the extra water vapour and once you’ve got it, in the real world, it tends to rise drawing in cooler air, make clouds and rain, and give up its thermal energy to space. It is this and many other imperfectly understood processes that the models attempt to simulate.
As they say, there are known unknowns but more importantly there are very likely to be unknown unknowns.
Why does anyone think the models “help to show” what the next century "will" bring, as opposed to "might" when they did not correctly predict the last decade?
Why does anyone take them seriously when they do not properly simulate the upper atmosphere temperatures?
Why would anyone trust any climate model or study that is not 100% open to inspection and challenge by critics from the moment it is published? Have we learn nothing from Y2K, WMD, Sub-prime Mortgages and MP’s expenses?
David Holland, EarnestLee and Icedvolvo
If you are prepared to debate civilly and rationally, I’ll join you for a debate on this topic over at the comments pages of my article "Since when do conservatives hate facts?"
Hi Ben,
I will take my questions over to your sizzling discovery about conservatives although I don’t believe that they are responsible for Australia’s ridiculously high abortion rates.
Whether it is climate change risks or major disease risks (e.g. from influenza, smoking, alcohol, obesity etc), responsible risk management means that we take very seriously the advice from top scientific experts at the cutting edge of research in these areas and ALSO from other outstanding scientists and top scientific bodies able to make authoritative statements about such risks.
For numerous cogent quotes from such outstanding Australian scientists about the risks from the Climate Emergency – with links to key biographical details, sources and key statements in a wider context for clarity, especially for non-scientist readers - see " CLIMATE EMERGENCY: What Outstanding Australian Scientists Say" : http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emerg… and "CLIMATE EMERGENCY: What Top World Scientific Experts Say ": http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emerg… .
Of acute relevance to the debate about the carbon-polluting, oxymoronic CPRS at the moment, top climate scientists and top climate economists are advocating a straightforward Carbon Tax and are slamming cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS ) proposals as flawed, unlikely to be effective and likely to generate market derivatives bubbles of the kind that caused the recent market meltdown - see "Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) ": http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/carbon-tax-ne… .
After 5 decades as a scientist (including research in areas relating to climate change) I would offer this advice: listen to the advice of outstanding scientists and other top scholars at the cutting edge of climate change research - and eschew the inexpert, partisan advice (spin) of industry lobbyists, ignorant climate sceptics and pro-coal Lib-Lab politicians.
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
"Whether it is climate change risks or major disease risks (e.g. from influenza, smoking, alcohol, obesity etc), responsible risk management means that we take very seriously the advice from top scientific experts at the cutting edge of research in these areas and ALSO from other outstanding scientists and top scientific bodies able to make authoritative statements about such risks."
OK. How are they explaining the solution. Are they advocating we,who?, can control Greenhouse Gases?
All that I have heard advocated is we reduce current levels of CO2 emissions.
My knowledge is further limited to what I read.
1. CO2 only accounts for max. 25% of Greenhouse Gas concentration.
2. Its own concentration has been built up over many centuries.
Therefore we are not going to reduce that concentration by limiting additions.
Therefore temperatures are going to continue to rise.
What is planned to stabilize or reduce the other 75% of Greenhouse Gas concentration?