Dr. Roy Spencer went to Washington to give testimony today to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Here is his presentation. While not as technical as Lord Moncktons paper at APS (since it had to be simplified for a congressional hearing), it nonetheless says the same thing – climate sensitivity is overstated by models and not supported by observational data. – Anthony
Update: See the complete testimony on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U
Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008
A printable PDF of this testimony can be found here
I would like to thank Senator Boxer and members of the Committee for allowing me to discuss my experiences as a NASA employee engaged in global warming research, as well as to provide my current views on the state of the science of global warming and climate change.
I have a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and have been involved in global warming research for close to twenty years. I have numerous peer reviewed scientific articles dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability and climate change. I am also the U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
1. White House Involvement in the Reporting of Agency Employees’ Work
On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject.
This did not particularly bother me, though, since I knew that as an employee of an Executive Branch agency my ultimate boss resided in the White House. To the extent that my work had policy relevance, it seemed entirely appropriate to me that the privilege of working for NASA included a responsibility to abide by direction given by my superiors.
But I eventually tired of the restrictions I had to abide by as a government employee, and in the fall of 2001 I resigned from NASA and accepted my current position as a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Despite my resignation from NASA, I continue to serve as Team Leader on the AMSR-E instrument flying on the NASA Aqua satellite, and maintain a good working relationship with other government researchers.
2. Global Warming Science: The Latest Research
Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” — instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin (Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.)
If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end — if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now.
2.1 Theoretical evidence that climate sensitivity has been overestimated
The support for my claim of low climate sensitivity (net negative feedback) for our climate system is two-fold. First, we have a new research article1 in-press in the Journal of Climate which uses a simple climate model to show that previous estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system from satellite data were biased toward the high side by the neglect of natural cloud variability. It turns out that the failure to account for natural, chaotic cloud variability generated internal to the climate system will always lead to the illusion of a climate system which appears more sensitive than it really is.
Significantly, prior to its acceptance for publication, this paper was reviewed by two leading IPCC climate model experts – Piers Forster and Isaac Held– both of whom agreed that we have raised a legitimate issue. Piers Forster, an IPCC report lead author and a leading expert on the estimation of climate sensitivity, even admitted in his review of our paper that other climate modelers need to be made aware of this important issue.
To be fair, in a follow-up communication Piers Forster stated to me his belief that the net effect of the new understanding on climate sensitivity estimates would likely be small. But as we shall see, the latest evidence now suggests otherwise.
2.2 Observational evidence that climate sensitivity has been overestimated
The second line of evidence in support of an insensitive climate system comes from the satellite data themselves. While our work in-press established the existence of an observational bias in estimates of climate sensitivity, it did not address just how large that bias might be.
But in the last several weeks, we have stumbled upon clear and convincing observational evidence of particularly strong negative feedback (low climate sensitivity) from our latest and best satellite instruments. That evidence includes our development of two new methods for extracting the feedback signal from either observational or climate model data, a goal which has been called the “holy grail” of climate research.
The first method separates the true signature of feedback, wherein radiative flux variations are highly correlated to the temperature changes which cause them, from internally-generated radiative forcings, which are uncorrelated to the temperature variations which result from them. It is the latter signal which has been ignored in all previous studies, the neglect of which biases feedback diagnoses in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity).
Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100. As can be seen in Fig. 1, that estimate from satellite data is much less sensitive (a larger diagnosed feedback) than even the least sensitive of the 20 climate models which the IPCC summarizes in its report. It is also consistent with our previously published analysis of feedbacks associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations3.
Fig. 1. Frequency distributions of feedback parameters (regression slopes) computed from three-month low-pass filtered time series of temperature (from channel 5 of the AMSU instrument flying on the NOAA-15 satellite) and top-of-atmosphere radiative flux variations for 6 years of global oceanic satellite data measured by the CERES instrument flying on NASA’s Terra satellite; and from a 60 year integration of the NCAR-CCSM3.0 climate model forced by 1% per year CO2 increase. Peaks in the frequency distributions indicate the dominant feedback operating. This NCAR model is the least sensitive (greatest feedback parameter value) of all 20 IPCC models.
A second method for extracting the true feedback signal takes advantage of the fact that during natural climate variability, there are varying levels of internally-generated radiative forcings (which are uncorrelated to temperature), versus non-radiative forcings (which are highly correlated to temperature). If the feedbacks estimated for different periods of time involve different levels of correlation, then the “true” feedback can be estimated by extrapolating those results to 100% correlation. This can be seen in Fig. 2, which shows that even previously published4 estimates of positive feedback are, in reality, supportive of negative feedback (feedback parameters greater than 3.3 Wm-2K-1).
Fig. 2. Re-analysis of the satellite-based feedback parameter estimates of Forster and Gregory (2006) showing that they are consistent with negative feedback rather than positive feedback (low climate sensitivity rather than high climate sensitivity).
2.3 Why do climate models produce so much global warming?
The results just presented beg the following question: If the satellite data indicate an insensitive climate system, why do the climate models suggest just the opposite? I believe the answer is due to a misinterpretation of cloud behavior by climate modelers.
The cloud behaviors programmed into climate models (cloud “parameterizations”) are based upon researchers’ interpretation of cause and effect in the real climate system5. When cloud variations in the real climate system have been measured, it has been assumed that the cloud changes were the result of certain processes, which are ultimately tied to surface temperature changes. But since other, chaotic, internally generated mechanisms can also be the cause of cloud changes, the neglect of those processes leads to cloud parameterizations which are inherently biased toward high climate sensitivity.
The reason why the bias occurs only in the direction of high climate sensitivity is this: While surface warming could conceivably cause cloud changes which lead to either positive or negative cloud feedback, causation in the opposite direction (cloud changes causing surface warming) can only work in one direction, which then “looks like” positive feedback. For example, decreasing low cloud cover can only produce warming, not cooling, and when that process is observed in the real climate system and assumed to be a feedback, it will always suggest a positive feedback.
2.4 So, what has caused global warming over the last century?
One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural processes at work which have caused most of that warming.
On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend: warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed warming since then. These results are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. A simple climate model forced with cloud cover variations assumed to be proportional to a linear combination of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index. The heat flux anomalies in (a), which then result in the modeled temperature response in (b), are assumed to be distributed over the top 27% of the global ocean (1,000 meters), and weak negative feedback has been assumed (4 W m-2 K-1).
While this is not necessarily being presented as the only explanation for most of the warming in the last century, it does illustrate that there are potential explanations for recent warming other that just manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Significantly, this is an issue on which the IPCC has remained almost entirely silent. There has been virtually no published work on the possible role of internal climate variations in the warming of the last century.
3. Policy Implications
Obviously, what I am claiming today is of great importance to the global warming debate and related policy decisions, and it will surely be controversial. These results are not totally unprecedented, though, as other recently published research6 has also led to the conclusion that the real climate system does not exhibit net positive feedback.
While it will take some time for the research community to digest this new information, it must be mentioned that new research contradicting the latest IPCC report is entirely consistent with the normal course of scientific progress. I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor.
While other researchers need to further explore and validate my claims, I am heartened by the fact that my recent presentation of these results to an audience of approximately 40 weather and climate researchers at the University of Colorado in Boulder last week (on July 17, 2008 ) led to no substantial objections to either the data I presented, nor to my interpretation of those data.
And, curiously, despite its importance to climate modeling activities, no one from Dr. Kevin Trenberth’s facility, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), bothered to drive four miles down the road to attend my seminar, even though it was advertised at NCAR.
I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated — not attacked and maligned.
And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that encourages that goal.
REFERENCES
1. Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Potential biases in cloud feedback diagnosis:
A simple model demonstration. J. Climate, in press.
2. Allen, M.R., and D.J. Frame, 2007: Call off the quest. Science, 318, 582.
3. Spencer, R.W., W. D. Braswell, J. R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation
budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698.
4. Forster, P. M., and J. M. Gregory, 2006: The climate sensitivity and its components
diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget data. J. Climate, 19, 39-52.
5. Stephens, G. L., 2005: Clouds feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review. J.
Climate, 18, 237-273.
6. Schwartz, S. E., 2007: Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of the Earth’s
climate system. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S05, doi:10.1029/2007JD008746.
Ok, Smokey, my good old friend, the way I understand it AGW means increasing temperature with increasing CO2 if every other variables (sunspots, cosmic rays, etc.) are kept constant. However, these other variables are not constants most of the times, so there will be variations, superimposed on warming by CO2. With that as the background, if the 5 year average (or even three year average) temperature goes below 1960’s level (or 1970s level or even that of 1980) anytime in the next 10 years, I will certainly concede that there are reasons to doubt AGW. How about that? I assume you will concede the opposite if that doesn’t happen?
About the surveys, my position was based on number of scientific organizations, Nobel Laureates, and National Academy members, etc. I am sure J. Shore will have his answer.
Just to be clear, I do not believe most environmentalists are anti-American. They criticize America more, because they think it will have more effect as a democratic country, and most of those activists we hear are Americans. Many Chinese activists criticize China also, most often they go to jail or stay under house arrest. If you listen to the Green Party members in Europe, they are not very friendly to Europe either. Also, the U.S. is way up in the top on per capita energy use, total emission (although we lost that to China, and that will attract a lot of criticism to China), etc., which naturally attracts criticism. I do not believe there is anything cynical, it is just a natural reaction.
[…] Roy Spencer testified last week to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He introduced himself by noting his PhD in […]
John McLondon (20:10:06)
You are correct John, In the best of all possible worlds, we should use nature’s tools to provide all of our energy requirements in the most efficient and non intrusive way to the environment. Unfortunately we live in a world where currently, the most efficient and least expensive way to provide electrical energy is with hydroelectric dams, coal/natural gas generating plants and nuclear power plants all of which have environmental impacts. Current Solar and Wind technology is not even close and may never replace our sustaining needs regardless of cost. The same scenario applies to oil/gas when it comes to heating and
transportation costs. People are short sighted and are not interested in change until it is really required and right now it is not. Lots of relativly inexpensive oil, coal, natural gas and dams are availible.
John, my comment about computers and “Garbage in/Garbage out” was not about the inputs, but about the integrity of the computer models parameters during the development of the models. As I understand it they are not available for review and may really be very biased towards Hansen’s agenda.
I am really not very confident in Wikipedia as a “factual/unbiased” source of Scientific Data.
BUCKO36 (00:11:24) :
“People are short sighted and are not interested in change until it is really required and right now it is not. Lots of relativly inexpensive oil, coal, natural gas and dams are availible.”
True. But the question is whether we should we act on the basis of short term goals and benefits or based on a strategic long term plan including the cost of environmental issues?
“As I understand it they are not available for review and may really be very biased towards Hansen’s agenda.”
I believe many of them are available. Here is one from Hansen’s place, anyone can play with it, change the input etc and verify whether everything is correct. It has the source code, so one can verify whether the code itself has any mistakes.
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/
“I am really not very confident in Wikipedia as a “factual/unbiased” source of Scientific Data.”
We can verify that from other sources. For example here is what Susan Hockfield, the President of MIT, said: “The amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface in an hour contains enough energy to meet the world’s current energy needs for a year.” Please see:
http://web.mit.edu/hockfield/speeches/2008-aaas.html
The U.S. imports about 12 million barrels of oil per day
( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm ) being the number one importer of oil. That is, at the current price, we are paying 1.5 billion dollars per day or more than half a trillion dollars a year. That is a staggering amount of money flowing to other countries, some of which are not exactly our friends. With the current technology (or promising technology in the immediate future) there is no chance we can meet our demands, and sustain it for a reasonable period of time, even if we start drilling everywhere. There is no option for us other than developing other energy sources.
Smokey,
If you look at today’s news you will see a report by Amnesty International criticizing China (and only China) for their human rights violations. Yes, it is not environmental, but organizations do criticize other countries, even though they know that in countries like China it may not make much of a difference.
Mr. McLondon;
Everything you’re talking is politics and environmentalist pseudo-religious dogma, not science. Whether I (and all the other “deniers”) are shills for Big Oil is immaterial. Whether we believe in alternate fuels or not is immaterial. What we think of using fossil fuels is immaterial. What the scientific institutions believe is immaterial…unless they can back it with science based, reproducible proof. What the Nobel Commission (who give Nobel’s to terrorists for being successful terrorists, and AlBore one for being PC) is especially immaterial.
Where’s the science? Where’s the warming? Don’t use the “Climate Change” soft-shoe shuffle/re-direction…there has to be AGW to cause the AGW induced climate change. Show me how CO2 causes AGW, and not with some meaningless computer model with magical mystery tippy top secret internal workings that can’t be explained. Show me AGW even exists outside of a means to transfer wealth into the pockets of Hansen/Gore et al. Point me to the guy who really knows how the global climate works and interacts. Guesses, good intentions, and “I know because God told me” don’t count. Before we step off on Nancy Pelosi’s multi-trillion dollar crusade to “Save the World”, don’t you think we oughta be saving it from an actual threat? Or know which threat to be fighting?
Alternate energy…cool, you’ve convinced me. I’m panting and slobbering to plug my toaster into your grid. Don’t really care where it comes from. No doubt Al Bore, his four houses, limos, private jets, and energy requirements of a small 3rd world nation will be glad to plug in too. So will the other 1% of our population that use more resources than the other 99% combined. Find some like minded souls, form a corporation, and have at it. This is America! Nothing stopping you and T. Boone Pickens….except the wing-nuts united against all forms of energy and the NIMBY folks. Remember how bio-fuels were the greatest thing since sliced white bread, oh such a short time ago? Well, wind power kill birds and is ugly (ask Ted Kennedy). Solar power will destroy the pristine beauty of our deserts. Hydro upsets the fish (not to mention the Snail Darter et al.). You come up with any alternative alternative energy sources, well, Polar Bears are endangered now…any energy usage threatens their existence and will fought tooth and nail.
jeez: Thanks for posting that USA Today article debunking the claim made regarding that Gallup poll; I respect your intellectual honesty.
Smokey says:
No…The point is that scientific opinion on climate change has changed in 17 years. And, it is not a matter of the age of the cite…It is a matter of the age of the poll. Besides being 17 years old, the USA Today article notes that the number was “taken out of context” which (from what I have read other places) appears to mean basically made up…and that in fact 66% of the scientists surveyed even back in 1991 believed that human-induced climate change was occurring.
Anyway, the main point is that we have a much more recent poll, http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html taken of AGU and AMS members by a similarly reputable polling organization that obtained the results that I noted above and that all can read in the link.
Yes, because I am sure that if I gave you a fact from, say, the National Resource Defense Council or Greenpeace, you would accept it on fact value? The reason that I don’t trust the NCPA is because they have a strong point-of-view and they don’t seem to mind distorting the evidence to fit that view. It is natural for those on one side of a debate not to trust what are clearly very partisan sources on the other.
Unfortunately, however, in this debate, the “skeptics” seem to define partisan sources to include the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and its counterparts in the other G8+5 nations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the editors of Science and Nature, the councils of the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the American Meteorological Society, etc., etc. Presumably even Shell Oil, BP, Ford, etc., who have all basically accepted the science on global warming. That is kind of ridiculous!
As I said, I haven’t been following all the back and forth, but I should probably state a position at some point. I believe either side demonizing either side is not only fruitless, but intellectually incorrect. AGW proponents, by and large believe fervently in their cause and are not trying to perpetuate a hoax. Likewise sceptics, by and large are not flat earthers, intellectually dishonest religious fundamentalists, or bought off by the oil companies.
This is why I often use the term groupthink to describe what is occurring. It is not a conspiracy. I view it as a shared bias, not that it is not fervently believed.
That being said, I have zero respect for Hansen, Mann, Jones et al.
Their refusal to engage in open, replicable, science is not justifiable in any way. The petty games they play while dismissing the requests to behave as scientists demonstrates more than any flaws in their work ever could.
I will probably contribute more in the future, but I have a conference call in two minutes, and of the sources listed above, I would say there is much evidence that the IPCC may be considered a partisan source. It is essentially their mandate.
@John McLondon:Although you employ an appeal to authority argument, and several red herring arguments, and you once again move the goal posts just out of reach, you avoided saying “Yes” or “No” to my proposed wager, which concerned only one thing: James Hansen’s temperature predictions [click]. It is James Hansen’s taxpayer funded job to take all the factors you mentioned into consideration, and more. There is no need to rehash them here. Either Hansen knows what he’s talking about, or he doesn’t, or he’s misrepresenting the data and his methodology.
My [intended to be fun] wager proposal states that by 1/01/10 Hansen will be shown to be wrong by more than .5 degrees F. As stated, you can take the bet, or you can change the date [within reason, of course]. But my proposal doesn’t provide for a fudged response: “I will certainly concede that there are reasons to doubt AGW.” My wager, as I stated, is for bragging rights. Your comment, as far as I can tell, is no different from your repeated statements in these threads. Where’s the fun in that? I’m putting my credibility up against Hansen’s. If you’re not willing to take the other side of the wager, just say so.
I will understand completely.
Jon (11:57:21) :
Thanks for that interesting essay. I am just providing a short response here, about the obvious. I am certain there is point in giving an expanded reply as it will simply be a waste of time since you have already made up your opinion.
“…unless they can back it with science based reproducible proof.”
I went through this before with JC Stout. How could one reproduce global warming? Just like how could one reproduce the Big Bang?
“Nobel Commission (who give Nobel’s to terrorists for being successful terrorists..”
Well… which one of the terrorists received a Nobel Prize?
Especially in science?
“Where’s the science? Where’s the warming?”
I do not know of any reasonable thoughtful person (including skeptics) saying that there is no warming, or CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Even skeptics like Lubos Motl has done simple calculations (without feedbacks) to come up with estimates of climate sensitivity (see from a skeptical blog http://www.coyoteblog.com/global_warming_climate_graphs/image003.gif
on Lubos’ estimate on how much warmer the Earth will get with increasing CO2).
Unfortunately, in my view, those with your opinion (and style) will seriously destroy the credibility of AGW critics. But, Thank you for your reply.
Smokey,
“..appeal to authority argument, and several red herring arguments..”
I have to disagree with some of those mindless logical rules. There is nothing wrong with appeal to authority. Are we going to trust the opinion of a medical doctor or a climate scientist when the topic is on a medical issue? Appeal to authority is fine as long as the authority is legitimate. We are not all experts in every field to find out for ourselves all the subtle details of every issue in that field, we have to depend on authority. But where exactly is the red herring???
I can only say that AGW is true. I have not gone through the details of Hansen’s climate sensitivity analysis (or what type of interactions he has included), and without knowing those details I cannot really say whether those predictions will be true or not. So, I cannot wager on this. I interpret this as a discussion on AGW, not about Hansen. So I am willing wager that even if the temperature takes a dip in one year, or two years, on average it will move up, not down. It will never reach those values set back in 70s or 80s no matter we wait for 30 years, and whether the PDO is reversed or sunspots are gone. Also, even if Hansen’s predictions are shown to be inexact, that does not mean AGW is wrong.
Are you interested in a wager on whether or not AGW is true?
Jeez,
Can you please elaborate a bit on your comment “replicable, science..”. I have been stating that global warming, like Big Bang, cannot be replicated in the conventional sense (unless like we stop producing CO2 for the next 20 years and then start producing CO2 at a rate may be 10 or 20 times more that what we produce now). On the other hand if the replication requirement is on each of the components that cause climate change, taken independently, then I am not sure there is any relevant mechanism out there that cannot be reproduced independently. So, I never understood when AGW critics point out the need for replication. Thanks!
Simply a disclosure of data, code, and methodologies is all that is required for outside people to replicate the studies to which I refer.
Michael Mann, does not do this. We just have to trust him. Lonnie Thompson does not do this. We just have to trust him. Phil Jones, does not do this. We just have to trust him.
Hansen, reluctantly started to do this last September after being embarrassed into it or being ordered by his superiors. Even so, Hansen’s disclosures are a poorly documented mess and are updated without notice or explanation, but are slowly being picked apart and analyzed.
The data, code, and methodologies of the studies being used to drive policy costing trillions of dollars are not being disclosed. We just have to trust them.
Jeez,
OK, I understand. Thanks. So it is a requirement on the tools, not on the phenomenon itself.
I agree with you completely.
Once you agree with this premise btw, it’s all down hill from here, once you learn how these influential so-called climate scientists behave, how petty they can be, how they fight outside scrutiny, you will become a skeptic.
To quote Phil Jones: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
Yes, that is the attitude of the people behind the Hadley Climate Center. That is the attitude of the people who tell us the historical record is unaffected by urban growth effects. Would you like to check their work on that? Sorry, you can’t.
REPLY: I agree, some of the arrogance displayed is stunning. -Anthony
Smokey: “Truth does not change.”
One truth is that 17 years ago a poll recorded that a minority (41 percent) of climate scientists were in substantial agreement with AGW. Another truth is that a more recent poll (2007) recorded that a majority (74 percent) of climate scientists were in substantial agreement with AGW. Which of these truths did you have in mind?
Interestingly, the poll results are what we would expect where the scientific evidence becomes more compelling over time. I’d say that this process is replicated across many now-established theories, as the more cautious scientists become more confident about the weight of evidence in favour of the theory.
Jeez: “This is why I often use the term groupthink to describe what is occurring.”
I think you’re being unduly pessimistic. If science reduces to groupthink, then science becomes no better than opinion. Most scientists would reject that, and would argue that science provides them with a method that is more reliable than opinion, and which enables them to arrive at convincing explanations about the way the world works.
However, you may be using “groupthink” to describe the pro-AGW side, in which case you would have to show that only AGWers are prone to groupthink, while sceptics are free of this tendency.
“Another truth is that a more recent poll (2007) recorded that a majority (74 percent) of climate scientists were in substantial agreement with AGW. ”
Do you have a reference for this, Brendan? Although I wouldn’t call 74% a consensus, I’d be surprised. Of course this all depends on the wording of the poll, and for example just what “substantial” means.
Both sides suffer from groupthink, or bias however…
The tendency of bias is much greater in those who believe they are trying to save the planet/humanity/nature/civilization. These people believe they have a higher calling and therefore their work is necessary to help. The process of Science can eventually resolve this bias, but it can be delayed for a long time. The current crop of so called scientists who refuse to allow their work to be scrutinized is symptomatic of this problem and groupthink. If they do not allow their work to be scrutinized, if they do not reveal data, code, and methods, it is not science, it is opinion as you stated above. The IPCC is heavily populated and influenced by this group of climate alchemists.
Bias is less problematic for those who think “hey maybe we aren’t all going to die or destroy the world for the children”. These people are simply looking for direction in an uncertain world, but can be formed into groups and mob psychology as well. Symptoms of this groupthink is ascribing malicious intent to the opposing view.
Both sides believe they are trying to do the right thing. Only when this is acknowledged can dialog occur.
This is obviously an assessment of my personal bias, but simply put, if data, code, and methods are not disclosed, it is not science. I put my faith in those that disclose.
Jeez and Anthony,
“Once you agree with this premise btw, it’s all down hill from here, once you learn how these influential so-called climate scientists behave, how petty they can be, how they fight outside scrutiny, you will become a skeptic.”
I am all for open disclosure in science as a matter of principle. Because, what Phil Jones said is exactly the objective of such disclosure, to give others an opportunity “to try and find something wrong with it” if there is indeed something really wrong with the data adjustments etc, so that the theory can be refined.
But here is the other side, unfortunately. First, I think any small problems we find, whether trivial or non-trivial, will be used with extraordinary thrust to discredit AGW, as we have seen in the past. Eg. Hansen’s Y2K bug, the change was relatively insignificant (in my opinion, unless of course we give so much importance to which year is the hottest), but the publicity it received through the AGW critics’ media was extremely disproportional. It was presented in many conservative radio stations and blogs as if the whole AGW is crumbling (it was not like now the data is more reliable and we were able to help to correct it; the message I heard was that we are winning, AGW people are on the run, etc. etc.). Of course, those who aided the Y2K discovery deserve full credit for their findings – both you and McIntyre, I am not minimizing that at all. But I thought the publicity it received and the way it was presented from various sources was completely misguided. May be Phil Jones and others feel that in such a highly politicized and polarized climate, any disclosure of such details may cause unjustified criticisms about their work and AGW. The overall situation is not good.
Second, if those disclosures are that important, then those data would be required in any peer-reviewed publications – unless of course, other groups with their own independent investigations came to the same conclusion. Also, I do not believe the National Science Academies all over the world are that naïve to accept the conclusion from these work, if there is a serious potential for arriving at a different conclusion if full disclosure of all the data/procedure is made.
Finally, this is the most important part. Satellite temperature measurements, as Anthony himself posted earlier ironically, show very good correlation with surface data for temperature anomalies (as far as I see it). So, irrespective of the cooperation on complete disclosure from some climate scientists, it appears that their methodologies are giving meaningful results consistent with other observations.
REPLY: Nicely said. I appreciate the courteous tone used to point out areas and issues. It is a far better way than many others have used The satellite data have one issue, and that is that the sounder does go down to the surface. According to Christy, about 20% of the signal is surface. So when looking at anomaly trends, don’t be surprised that there is some correlation with surface temperature measurements. But the question that Pielke et al remains: how much of that signal is due to land use change, urbanization, and related factors? It stands to reason that if we actively adjust the environment being measured, we’ll see that reflected in the data. Combine those changes with PDO, AMO, and other factors, and surely they’ll all meld together to make a stronger signal.
What’s happening now is a divergence between satellite and surface data. We’ll see if that starts to go away as La Nina effects fade. -Anthony
Glenn: “Do you have a reference for this, Brendan?”
I was referring to this link:
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
“Although I wouldn’t call 74% a consensus…“substantial” means.”
Strictly speaking, AGW consensus refers to the scientific views as expressed in IPCC reports, not to any general agreement among climate scientists, even if properly surveyed. “Substantial” is my word, not the survey’s.
Jeez: “The tendency of bias is much greater in those who believe they are trying to save the planet/humanity/nature/civilization.”
Many sceptics believe they are preventing the collapse of civilisation through the wrong-headed notions of global warmers. We’ve all read the dire warnings of a return to the Dark Ages or a descent into totalitarianism from actions that might be taken to mitigate climate change. This sort of catastrophising is a mirror image to the more lurid claims of global warmers.
But I agree there is an asymmetry to the global warming debate, since sceptics must affirm the negative, as it were. Does that mean they are more critical in their thinking? Not necessarily. One indication of groupthink in the blogosphere is linking, and sceptical blogs can be as uncritical in their linking as pro-AGW blogs. The Monkton threads are evidence of that.
“The current crop of so called scientists who refuse to allow their work to be scrutinized is symptomatic of this problem and groupthink.”
As I understand it, science requires the open dissemination of information. If you have any evidence of climate scientists deliberating obfuscating for whatever reason, you should place it before the appropriate authorities.
“Both sides believe they are trying to do the right thing. Only when this is acknowledged can dialog occur.”
Well, yes. So who goes first?
Science does require open dissemination of information. For an example of how climate alchemists including the lead author of the millennial section of the IPCC AR4 withhold data, read the following:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3352
I noted several others earlier in this thread who refuse to share their data and methods. This is the social network in control of the IPCC. These are the alchemists masquerading as scientists and the scientific community has been silent.
Jeez: “For an example of how climate alchemists including the lead author of the millennial section of the IPCC AR4 withhold data, read the following:”
I’m afraid I can’t make sense of the linked anecdote. As I have mentioned previously, if there have been repeated, serious breaches of scientific ethics, you should gather the evidence and place it in front of the appropriate authorities.
Sorry for the delayed post. So busy!
Jeez,
On the lack of data about research papers, methodologies, etc, there are two practical solutions (although I believe in complete disclosure): one is to repeat the experiments from the beginning to end. Instead of just asking for raw data from Keith Briffa and others and then looking for statistical errors in that data, I think the critics should repeat the same experiments by collecting raw data independent of Briffia’s results. This is hard, but that is the only way we can satisfy full repeatability. Checking for statistical errors alone is not going to assure the science. I think similar initiatives could be used for cross-checking methodologies, input parameters, etc., but for some reason the critics are not willing to go that far, although I wish they do. There may be other reasons why researchers may not want to give all the raw data, and in general they may consider asking the raw data in a confrontational way to be offensive. There were only few cases of scientific fraud, like Jan Hendrik Schon and Hwang Woo Suk. But most (by an overwhelming majority) are honest scientists, and in those few cases when they are not honest they were caught by other scientists just by studying their publications (not with the raw data. In fact, people like Schon were asked to submit the raw data only when there was sufficient reason to believe that he had committed fraud). Apart from Wei-Chyung Wang, there are no allegations about any climate scientists. The system works well in the long run. So many scientists may feel personally offended by asking for raw data, when there are no allegations against them.
Also, as in the legal discovery process, where lawyers could exasperate the system by asking for lots and lots of things, or proposing to pack with lots and lots of witness testimonies. If it is not done with proper judgment, asking for raw data for every paper could sound like the defense lawyers’ efforts to derail the court system.
Given this background, the second solution is to help to develop an environment where at least the reasonable people on both sides can trust each other, as I outline in the next part.
Anthony,
Thanks for your comments. As you said, time will tell the truth.
On the second solution, trust is hard to come by in an unnecessarily adversarial environment like this. In this case as Brendan H said earlier (“who goes first”), someone has to reach out first. As you said, we have to develop real courteous communications between these two sides. We all know it is so easy to make someone look very bad; we have seen how Sen./V.P. Dan Quayle, who was an accomplished Senator by all account as even acknowledged by Sen. Kennedy, was portrayed with the “you are no Jack Kennedy” insult and the Potato spelling incident and few other statements he had made. We all make spelling mistakes from time to time but when it is publicized so heavily, it can be used to tarnish someone’s image. In my opinion even the most accomplished scientists are afraid of how they will be portrayed in front of the public if others find even some inconsequential errors. Since even the most trivial errors can be publicized to look them bad, they don’t want to be portrayed as incompetent in algebra or averaging, etc., so they may not want to give that occasion by revealing all the details.
So, here is my suggestion to Anthony. You have a great audience here, and you can lead to change the present climate of distrust. May be you can reach out to Hansen and others, call him or meet him and if you can assure them that you will come to their defense if personal attacks are made against them and if trivial criticisms are made about their work. Then there is a good chance they might open up. I do not know of anyone more suitable than you to do that – you have electric cars, solar power, etc. You are doing what they are preaching others to do, although for different reasons. May be eventually you could post joint (or two parts articles) here addressing various issues with Hansen and others, instead of having all those public debates. I may be naïve, but I have seen people responding much better if they think the other side can be trusted, and that is the environment we have to create. I have not gone through Real Climate to see what kind of personal attacks they use, but comments like “Hansen bulldog Gavin Schmidt” and his private time “flexibly includes 9 to 5” “has provided bulldog services on behalf of his boss”, etc. from McIntyre is not very helpful in fostering collaboration, or even open communication. I hope you can take the initiative to change that.
I know you put a lot into that post and mine will be much shorter, but some of us have witnessed the history over the last 10 or 20 years and yes you are being naive.
Journals are not even enforcing their disclosure standards. The Team has gotten a free pass for the better part of a decade. The IPCC does not enforce its own disclosure standards. This has to stop. It has to stop now.
It will all eventually be sorted out. Nature will be the final arbiter, but it would be nice if we didn’t do stupid things out of misplaced ignorance that leads to death and misery before that happens.