Why politically motivated science is good science

Climate denialism is the real “hoax”: Why “politically motivated” science is good science  

The above linked article by Naomi Oreskes published in Salon presents an excellent case for government funded research on climate change.

A Republican Meteorologists View of Climate Change

From Paul Douglas' article in Bloomberg Business Week: "If you know anything about American politics these days, and follow the climate war at all, you might anticipate with some confidence that I agree global warming is a hoax. That’s a shame, and I hope it changes soon."

This is an excellent article that really exposes the political and monetary side to skepticism that humans are causing global warming.More from the article:

"Climate science shows that over a long period of time, the statistics have changed. Things that used to happen a lot, like consistent winter snow cover, are happening less reliably. Things that happened every now and then, like droughts and wildfires, are happening more reliably. And things that almost never happened -- such as the 15,000 new U.S. temperature records in March -- sometimes now do occur. And they can’t be explained with purely meteorological reasoning.........

........How did so much of the Republican Party enter perpetual denial? We’ve turned climate science into a bizarre litmus test for conservatism. To pretend that heat-trapping gases can be waved away with a nod and a smirk is political fairytale. No harm. No foul. Keep drilling."

The Heartland Files

Many of you have probably read about this latest skirmish between the "avowed scientific believers in climate change" and the avowed skeptics. The title link by Andrew Revkin delves into many of the details in more depth, and raises some very pertinent points about funding for both sides, and the many opportunities for conflict of interest.

My opinion? I definitely believe the science which concludes that the Earth is warming due to human fossil fuel emissions is very sound. You are of course welcome to your opinion, but do study the science, and the credentials of those who present their opinions.

For another good perspective, see The Toxic Debate by Marc Gunther.

Is Congress Really Listening?

It would appear they are, at least some of them. On Monday Physicist Richard Mueller from Berkley presented the findings by his study group to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Mueller: "We confirm that over the last 50 years, temperature has risen 0.9 degrees Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the same number that the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says."

Ranking committee Democrat Ed Markey lamented the United States' failure to act and applauded Australia's recent approval of a carbon tax to force its coal-fired power stations and other major emitters to "pay to pollute."

"The attacks on climate science have been a colossal distraction from the debate we should be having Congress on what actions should be taken to reduce pollution, create jobs, reclaim our lead in the clean energy race." (Markey)

Sustainable Agriculture

The title link is to the NY Times Blog by Andrew Revkin which contains a link to the excellent video, "The Other Inconvenient Truth", featuring Jonathan Foley.

Some other links used in today's class are:
Skeptic Talking Points Melt Away
NASA On-line Videos
Agriculture and population maps of the world
Nationmaster map and statistics source for countries of the world

CO2 and Global Temperature Long Term Relationship

If you too wonder why Co2 spikes lag temperature spikes by several hundred years, read the following and see the title link from which these quotes came:

"What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO₂ leads to warmer temperatures)......... CO₂ might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean."

For additional information from the IPCC.

What You and Others Think About Climate Change

"Scientific Agreement: While approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that it is caused primarily by human activities, this high level of scientific agreement is understood by only 44 percent of the Alarmed, 18 percent of the Concerned, 12 percent of theCautious, and 5 percent or fewer of the Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive." Andrew Revkin

The Skeptics Side

For the sake of objective presentation...and a few laughs, I wanted point out James Taylor's blog post in Forbes (title link) concerning the recent report from the National Acadeny of Scienes titled America's Climate Choices. If you read the post, also be sure to read the comments by David, as they provide an excellent counter perspective. Or you can make your own assessment of the credentials of the report's authors.

Also see NOAA's comments and the Reuters article by Elizabeth McGowan, Climate Study Congress Requested Falls on Deaf Ears in the Capitol. From this article:

"WASHINGTON—Ho hum.
The average air temperature in the United States has leapt two degrees in the last five decades. Yawn. Coastal regions in the country are disappearing because of rising sea levels. Hit the snooze button. The already-arid Southwest is becoming drier. Snore.......
"If members of Congress challenge the assertions in the report, they should hold hearings," Bledsoe (climate change specialist with the Bipartisan Policy Center) said. "If they believe and accept what's in it, they should hold hearings. One way or another they should deal with it," he concluded. "I don't see how they can ignore it." "

Clouds of Uncertainty

                                                                                                                              Bill Fintel photo

The title link is to a USA Today article reporting on cloud studies from 2000 to 2010 by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M. Dessler says his study shows clouds will have a positive feedback on greenhouse gas induced global warming. In other words, more warming will occur than just that caused by greenhouse gases.

The article cites a rebuttal to Dessler's study by climate change skeptic, Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama. Spencer believes clouds will provide a negative feedback and moderate greenhouse gas induced global warming. Overall, an interesting article from which you can draw your own conclusions.

Refining Climate History

You probably recall climate history charts of temperature and CO2 appear to show that rises in global temperature preceded rises in atmospheric CO2. This seems to be counter to today's theories that rising CO2 concentrations will cause a rise in global temperature, and thus provides fuel for the skeptics arguments against linking current rising CO2 levels to future global warming.

The title link to a Wall Street Journal article addresses this and details a new ice core effort in Antarctica aimed at refining  historical data to better clarify the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2. The main questions with past data arise from proxy results for temperature, and with ice core dating. This new study aims to use oxygen isotope measurements to deduce global temperature (not new, but apparently being done in a more refined way), and adds several techniques for deducing ice core age. Additionally, the drilling location is in an area with heavier snowfall, so the ice core layers are better separated.

The above photo shows back-lit ice layers and is from an expanded link in the WSJ article.

More on why skeptics are good

This link is to a very well written and concise article in the WSJ pointed out by Keith Kiernan. Following is a quote from the article:

"Skeptics don't doubt science—they doubt unscientific claims cloaked in the authority of science. The scientific method is a foundation of our information age, with its approach of a clearly stated hypothesis tested through a transparent process with open data, subject to review.

The IPCC report was instead crafted by scientists hand-picked by governments when leading politicians were committed to global warming. Unsurprisingly, the report claimed enough certainty to justify massive new spending and regulations."

Global warming advocates ignore the boulders

This link is to a George Will op-ed column in the Washington Post. It contains lots of details, many presented in a sarcastic way that made me smile. It also contains lots of links for those who wish to delve deeper into his details.

The link I found fascinating is the admission by Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, that there has been NO statistically significant global warming from 1995 to the present.

And as if things aren't bad enough for global warming advocates, read the NY Times analysis of why Yvo de Boer resigned as UN Climate Chief.

Guess What, Global Warming Results in More Snow

Contrary to global warming skeptics the increased snowfall that we have had in the past few weeks is indicative of the increase in ocean temperatures in addition to the stronger than usual El Nino this winter. Check out the link to the NPR news story for a closer look and don't be fooled by nay sayers when it comes to global warming.

Arctic freeze and snow wreak havoc across the planet

"Arctic air and record snow falls gripped the northern hemisphere today, inflicting hardship and havoc from China, across Russia to Western Europe and over the US plains.

There were few precedents for the global sweep of extreme cold and ice that killed dozens in India, paralysed life in Beijing and threatened the Florida orange crop."

Plus, I would like to add that yesterday's Prime Hook Christmas Bird Count was  one of the coldest/harshest bird counts I have ever participated in. Why is this happening and how does it relate to global warming predictions?

I certainly don't know, but I will see what I can learn, such as from the first comment to the linked article: "Yeah well it's 36C (97F) down under here in Melbourne Australia and my air con is at full blast. Serves you all right for living on the wrong side of the Earth!".......i.e. what's happening in half the globe, does not necessarily represent the whole globe.

Climate-Gate and the Russians

The plot thickens! This link is to a long and detailed article which is more damming than ever re the goings-on behind Climate-Gate. Turns out the emails were leaked to the world from a Russian server in Tomsk, although the Russians deny any involvement. And be sure to see how the "hockey stick" curve was artfully created by terminating tree ring data in 1961. While this news source, Daily Mail, is a tabloid newspaper, the article seems well researched and documented.

Anyway, all along I have said watch sea level as an indicator of global warming, and to that I add arctic sea ice extent.

More on 'Climate-Gate' from the WSJ

Concerning the leaked emails of prominent climate scientists (Penn State's Michael Mann et al):

"A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

".............. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim."

Unethical Behavior - 'Climate-gate'

This link to FoxNews contain many quotes from the hacked documents of prominent climate researchers. Even as a believer that global warming is taking place, I certainly find many of the quotes presented as sound examples of unethical behavior. The following quote sums up the suppression of skeptical views:

"Other emails refer to efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in scientific journals. Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, told The Wall Street Journal: "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."" (bold type by me). Bill

In a New Climate Model, Short-term Cooling

Natural climate changes can outweigh global warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In this May, 2008 New York Times article by Andrew Revkin, he refers to work done by researchers from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, in Kiel, Germany. "We're learning that internal climate variability is important and can mask the effects of human-induced global change," according to the lead author of a paper published in the May 1, 2008 journal Nature, Noel Keenlyside. This study looked at the relationship between currents in the Atlantic Ocean called the meridional overturning circulation, which undergo periodic changes, and global climate trends. The result of their computer simulation based on ocean temperatures indicate a slight cooling of Europe and North America in this coming decade.

Also, as pointed out in Revkin's article, researchers, including NASA scientists reported that a slowly fluctuating oscillation in Pacific Ocean temperatures had shifted into a cooling phase that is expected to exert an overall cooling of global climate.

Skeptics

Professor Fred Singer, distinguished research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, pointed out in his book, "Unstoppable Global Warming," that the warming we now seem to be experiencing is certainly not unique in recent climate history; even NASA acknowledged it had accidently inflated its official record of surface temperatures in the US beginning with the year 2000. Revised data show 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, and 1953. New data are emerging that raises substantial doubt about the veracity of the surface temperature data in the US, as well as globally; warming from surrounding manmade structures are apparently the cause for the rising temperature trend being recorded.

Pacific Gas and Electric Quits US Chamber of Commerce

The linked article in the NY Times highlights the fundamental conflicts between big business and climate policy. The link in the article to the PG&E's environmental Blog also provides some interesting insight. California leads the way.......again?