Post
Climate Change scepticism, science and reason
This is a post in response to Jodi's and Vitezslav's articles.
Jodi makes a valid point, that is, generally speaking. But I feel like she is missing something in the picture. While it is true that "continually re-examining the evidence can only ever strengthen our understanding of what we're dealing with", the reasons for being an outcast or a sceptic 30 years ago had profound scientific reasons.
The amount of data that we had was absolutely inadequate for the kind of research that we were trying to pursue. As more data comes in, you are more likely to reach a conclusion that is more likely to be true, or close enough. The kind of general relativism "We can all be wrong, you never know" and so on is partially true, but it fails to consider the actual evidence in face of a scientific and cultural revolution.
Consider the birth of quantum mechanics. When Werner Heisenberg proposed the "uncertainty principle", that is, it's impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty, it had profound implications for such fundamental notions as causality and the determination of the future behaviour of an atomic particle.
Werner Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle in, ironically, the Niels Bohr's institute at Copenhagen, while working on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics.
This seemingly harmless sounding statement had even more profound scientific and philosophical implications. Albert Einstein was repelled by the idea that the universe was non deterministic, and he spent much of his late years trying to disprove quantum theory. He firmly stood by the idea that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, while Niels Bohr's posistion was that the probability distributions are fundamental and irreducible, and depend on which measurements we choose to perform. Einstein and Bohr debated the uncertainty principle for many years.
Today, most physicists accept the laws of quantum mechanics as an accurate description of the subatomic world. And certainly it was a thorough understanding of these new laws which helped Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley invent the transistor.
In short, Einstein and all the other sceptics were wrong, and all the observational evidence that we collected points to the direction of quantum theory. There may be a few sceptics, but nobody would dream of going back to Newtonian mechanics, they would most likely formulate a third theory, a new idea. Progress, not regress.
Science evolves, it ameliorates its tools for measuring and its knowledge of the physical world. The amount of data that was collected in the 70's regarding our climate, the models and the simulations were extremely poor. Now we have a multitude of data coming from multiple sources, including satellites, powerful computers and complex algorithms that can predict with a certain degree of accuracy the near future.
In other words, we held a position like a religious belief when we were completely ignorant, now we have a little more knowledge and we can discard old dogmas and opinions in favour of observational science and probabilistic predictions.
If you don't have to time/will to read the extensive scientific research in support of the current climate change theory, I suggest you watch this wonderful series of documentaries by Iain Simpson Stewart, a Scottish geologist, Professor of Geoscience Communication at the University of Plymouth, and produced by the BBC entitled "Earth: The Climate Wars" (thanks to TDF for the following description).
Episode 1 – The Battle Begins
In the 1970s the world seemed to be falling apart. From acid rain to overpopulation, ecological concerns were at the fore. And it was at this time that climate change first became a hot political issue. But it wasn’t global warming that frightened scientists, it was the complete opposite; a new ice age.Dr Iain Stewart traces the history of climate change from its very beginning and examines just how the scientific community managed to get it so very wrong back in the Seventies. Along the way he uncovers some of the great unsung heroes of climate change science, and introduces us to a secret organisation of American government scientists, known as Jason, who wrote the first official report on global warming as far back as 1979.He shows how – by the late 1980s – global warming had already become a serious political issue. It looked as if the world was uniting to take action. But it turned out to be a false dawn. Because in the 1990s global warming would be transformed into one of the biggest scientific controversies of our age.
Episode 2 – Fightback
Dr Iain Stewart investigates the counter attack that was launched by the global warming sceptics in the 1990s. At the start of the 1990s it seemed the world was united. At the Rio Earth summit the world signed up to a programme of action to start tackling climate change. Even George Bush was there. But the consensus didn’t last.Iain examines the scientific arguments that developed as the global warming sceptics took on the climate change consensus. The sceptics attacked almost everything that scientists held to be true. They argued that the planet wasn’t warming up, that even if it was it was nothing unusual, and certainly whatever was happening to the climate was nothing to do with human emissions of greenhouse gases.Iain interviews some of the key global warming sceptics, and discovers how their positions have changed over time.
Episode 3 – New Challenges
Having explained the science behind global warming, and addressed the arguments of the climate change sceptics earlier in the series, in this third and final part Dr Iain Stewart looks at the biggest challenge now facing climate scientists. Just how can they predict exactly what changes global warming will bring? It’s a journey that takes him from early attempts to model the climate system with dishpans, to supercomputers, and to the frontline of climate research today: Greenland. Most worryingly he discovers that scientists are becoming increasingly concerned that their models are actually underestimating the speed of changes already underway.
As for Vitezslav's remark:
Later, in reply to my question, he also said, that climate sceptic scientists are "flat earthers" and it is a waste of time to have an "open discussion" with madmen.
[...]
So first they invite us, they pay a hotel, airplane and food for us. It costs thousands of EUR. We fly here from all parts of the world. To an event called "Think about it". And then we are told "NOT TO think about it". So now I am not sure what to do. Should I use my head or not? Advise me.
[...]
Maybe most scientists really do believe so (I doubt it), but it is just a belief. They do not have the evidence. Not yet. You may think, that "we must act fast, we cannot wait for the scientific evidence". OK, but then you cannot say it is a "science based policy", can you? And there is no reason to ridicule sceptics as flat earthers and say the matter is "closed".
I'm very much curious of his position. He says that many scientists hold their beliefs on human caused climate change, that there is no clear evidence and that after all, it's just a belief.
It could not be farther away from the truth.
Real scientists do no hold any belief. They observe something, and by following the scientific process they know something is likely to be true, or accurate. That is, until new evidence and/or a new consistent theory emerges, which refines or discards the old theory.
From what I understand he wants to put the emphasis on the effect that solar radiations may have on our climate, specifically to various solar cycles that seem to occur overy few years.
According to the excellent guide: "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming" there a five stages of denials, each one of them having several subsections. Vitezslav seems to be at number 1.a.
However, to be fair, he does point out the Suess and Hallstadtzeit cycle, a few of the cyclic changes in behaviour of the Sun. Many possible patterns have been suggested. Interestingly, only the 11 (Schwabe) and 22 year (Hale cycle) cycles are clear in the observations. The Gleissberg, Suess, Hallstatt, and the Xapsos-Burke cycle are still in the realm of what Vitezslav himself would call "belief", since there is no clear observational evidence.
The climate sceptic guide, however, helps us again:
It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.
Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modelled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.
RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions. Read them here and here.
p.s. This article was crossposted on my blog.
Comments
I am going to write a separate blog post about it. So here I reply just briefly. My reply is this: google some graph of the strength of the sunspot cycles 20-24. And TH!NK about it. It will give you certain information. Then compare it with this “irradiance graph”. Isn’t it rather surprising?
Firstly, climate change and quantum mechanics are very different fields of science. The principles behind them are different, and the way that we measure and analyse them both are entirely different as well. They are simply not comparable. Data on climate change is still open to interpretation, which is why even though much of the scientific community agree that the world is heating up, and that man has contributed to it - they disagree regarding the extent to which we have contributed, the degree to which it’s heating up and the likely effects of a rise in temperature. As such, it remains a highly contestable field. Which leads me back to the point I was trying to make in my blog. While I personally believe that the world is warming and firmly agree that we should do something about it, I still think that dissent serves a purpose in the debate. If dissent caused inaction, yes that would be a problem, but if it helps hone our understanding of the issue then it’s beneficial. Until we are 100% of the causes and effects of climate change (as certain as we are that the world is a sphere) then scientific debate necessarily needs to continue. In the meantime however, we need to act on the information we have.
Jodi,
I think the two are very much comparable, given the time frame of their relative studies.
Quantum mechanics, in its infancy, was still very debated, but the observational evidence seemed to point that the theory was right.
Similarly, most scientists agree that Climate change is real, it’s man made, and that it will have very serious consequences in less then 40 years, as we are already experiencing some of these consequences right now.
Until we are 100% of the causes and effects of climate change (as certain as we are that the world is a sphere)
There will never be a 100% consensus. However, already today more than 90% of scientists agree.
See the NYTimes 2007 article by ELISABETH ROSENTHAL and ANDREW C. REVKIN “Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?ex=1328158800&en=61f42312221df544&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
then scientific debate necessarily needs to continue. In the meantime however, we need to act on the information we have.
You rightly say: “scientific debate”. In fact, among the scientists, there really is no debate whatsoever regarding the fact that climate change is human made.
The only debate is to the degree of the disastrous effects of climate change. Will it be X or Y? Nobody knows that, but the most pessimistic IPCC predictions have actually been proven to be quite optimistic over the last years.
“Worst IPCC predictions are already taking place”
http://www.elrst.com/2009/03/12/worst-ipcc-predictions-are-already-taking-place/
Benno Hansen, in his excellent post “Don’t believe the truth”
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/dont_believe_the_truth/
states:
“The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved [...] leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming [...]” - IPCC
And their estimates have been conservative, reality exceeding their fears repeatedly. The IPCC cannot risk over-estimates as that would cost a lot of their credibility in a world of sceptics and deniers.
there comes a point when action is needed, scepticism must be saved for later. Now is such a point in regards to the climatological predictions on the runaway greenhouse effect.
“Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society [...] the logic of a sceptical argument defeats any amount of evidence; one can deduce that no inference from observation can ever be certain, that one cannot be sure that the future will be like the past, and that nothing is exactly like anything else, making the process of experimental repetition more complicated than it seems [...] Just showing there is some doubt about an issue, or another side to the story — at which we social scientists are nowadays unbeatable — does not inform you what to do” - Harry Collins
I might add, let the scientists debate.
We should think about it, discussing it, comparing researches, but not really debating what smarter people and better informed people then use already agree on.
Just saying.
@Vitezslav
I will be waiting for the post.
I just hope you are not going to cite Nasif Nahle’s “Total Solar Irradiance and Climate Change”. -_-
they disagree regarding the extent to which we have contributed, the degree to which it’s heating up and the likely effects of a rise in temperature
To a certain extent, yes.
But we are not talking about this. Vitezslav is arguing that climate change is not man made, but rather it’s the sun’s fault.
Should we debate that as well?
You don’t need to try and convince me of the facts around climate change… I’m already on board. In terms of the role of dissent perhaps we can agree to disagree. It is my view that open debate on an issue is positive, even if we do believe we’ve got all the facts. Do I think that the views of sceptics should be equally weighed up in articles, or included in peer reviewed journals just to show the “other side”? No. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m simply pointing out that dissent plays a role in intellectual progress.
Another great article, Federico! And thanks for the thumbs up
In fact, as I was reading this a couple of times I thought to myself “hmm why didn’t I make this point/example myself”. Very good. And I agree with your points.
The bit about how much we’re really in the dark regarding the causality of solar cycles is also interesting. We’re observing some variations, yes, but why it varies it anyones guess it seems. Which is on top of being entirely out of magnitude with the observed temperature rise. How is this much better than astrology, one might ask if to be a bit provocative!?
@jodi
I’m simply pointing out that dissent plays a role in intellectual progress.
Yes, you are right about that indeed.
@benno
ow is this much better than astrology, one might ask if to be a bit provocative!?
I’m not what to answer to that…
Oh my, I’m becoming dyslexic.
Corrige:
I don’t know what to answer to that.
Where’s the freaking “preview comment” button? >_<
The “solar irradiance is stable” is a strong argument of the AGW believers. However… See my reply at my blog post
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/what_no_temperature_sun_correlation_in_the_last_30_years
AGW believers
Please mind your words: not believers, observers. If real, solid evidence emerges, I will change my mind.
I read your post. All I see is contradictory data and conspiracy theories of a single man challenging the whole international community of real scientists, who studied the subject for more than 20 or 30 years and can actually make consistent theories.
Get real.
For those who don’t want to lay awake all night running this through their minds over and over, don’t read this thought….
The prediction of drastic climate change during the 21st century was actually made by solar scientists back in 1981 after they did the mathematics regarding the Sun’s gradual increase in radiance every 11 year solar cycle since the end of the Maunder Minimum.
The toatl current Human contribution to the global CO2 output is just under than 1.8%. All the world’s internal combustion engines contribute 0.0000002% of this 1.8% toatl.
Ironically, stick a catalytic converter onto an engine trebles its CO2 emissions, decreases its efficiency by 15% and increases its fuel consumption by 10%.
If the Sun continues incfreasing in radience at the same rate, every 11 year cycle, eventually the ultra violet radiation hitting the ground will be enough to sterilise the soil bacteria at the bottom of the food chain, which we sit on the top of.
If / when this happens, we will be a long way up the creek with out a paddle or canoe.
I would surmise that some scientists have already figured this out and so have the world’s governements.
However how do they explain the changing climate to Joe Public without causing mass panic about possible mass extinction??
He creates a scapegoat and CO2 is a good one to go for, and the public can focus their attention on playing “King Canute”.
And for those who don’t want to believe that the Sun is causing all of this, ask yourself this…. why is UV protective sunscreen more than 6 times stronger now that it was back in the 1980’s, eh??
If you walked on a beach in the summer of 2009 wearing 1980 sunscreen you’d end up with bad sunburn.
Yes we are being hoodwinked but maybe it is for our own peace of mind.
And for those who don’t want to believe that the Sun is causing all of this, ask yourself this…. why is UV protective sunscreen more than 6 times stronger now that it was back in the 1980’s, eh??
You are not serious, are you? Yo are basing your argument on protective sunscreen, when there is extensive literature explaining why the sun is not responsible for the recent warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/
Vitezslav, Andy… are you convinced, or have you just abandoned the conversation?
Federico, does a lack of response somehow prove you right? Somehow I think it reflects more on your character.
There hasn’t been any “observation” of anthropogenic global warming, so you cannot call yourself an observer, just a theorist. Mind you, “Climate skeptics” prefer to be called climate realists.
Right, because “character” is what you should focus on in a scientific discussion…
The lack of response proving me right? Not at all. I was merely asking if you were still thinking or if you just forgot about it.
And what does that tell about my character? That I like to go deep into he discussion instead of letting it go to a superficial level?
There hasn’t been any “observation” of anthropogenic global warming
In fact, yes, there has. It’s called part per million.
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/history_is_you_teacher
Federico, proving that CO2 increase is manmade does not prove that global warming is manmade. Look, CO2 may be out of the limits of natural variation, but temperatures are not. So AGW is not proven, it is just a matter of belief. OUr temperaturs still can be explained by the old fashioned causes (sun, oceans)
If you want to call a 20 million year reconstruction of CO2 an observation of anthropogenic global warming, then I can’t help you.
The authors don’t claim to have answered everything, and like all good scientists, they point out that they haven’t proven causation, only shown very high correlation.
CO2 levels are currently 384ppm, yet both Antarctica and Greenland are accumulating ice. So much for that theory. The Arctic has a recent melting episode due to warm ocean currents, but is now recovering back towards the 30-year mean. Real world observation trumps unreliable proxy reconstructions.
If you want to call a 20 million year reconstruction of CO2 an observation of anthropogenic global warming, then I can’t help you.
I hope you are kidding. The 20 million year reconstruction shows that naturally the Earth did not have such high levels of C02 for millions of years. The only thing that changed since it stabilised is human activities, and the evidence is overwhelming (so much for your argument “the earth is too big for humans to have an effect”).
It’s right on the NASA page. Evidence, figures, and numbers, not smalltalk.
The role of human activity
In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there’s a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.
They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel’s full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.
Real world observation trumps unreliable proxy reconstructions.
Wrong, just look at the evidence provided.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/